First Year of War: What We Learn from Ukraine

[@legoeasycompany]

It's been really weird seeing how quickly the modern air war has gone from thoughts of Flankers/MiGs/Frogfoots prewar to the TB2/munition/kamikaze drones. Strange that the only things that mostly stayed constant were the cruise missile strikes.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

I would add GBAD before cruise missiles (that are not really that much a constant imo but that's another discussion), if there is one main 'kit' based lesson is that AD needs a stronger focus in the West (esp. Europe)

[@bruceyawen6160]

​@@MilitaryAviationHistory i would also add that the event of cheap loitering munitions/suicide drones has brought canon based air defense back into relevancy

[@CGM_68]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory editing slip at 11:45 - Something cut out between 11:48 and 11:49

[@wreckincrew2714]

I'm astonished that at the beginning of this war and at the peak of Russian Air Sorties they were only flying about 150 sorties a day. That seems very small in comparison to what the US would've done on a basic level. That says a lot!!

[@reggievonramstein]

@@CGM_68 @Military Aviation History yes there is a break in continuity. The sentence is not completed.

[@deaks25]

A couple of takeaways for me; one is well known: air space control is really important, and the conflict has shown why NATO rightly puts a strong emphasis on the neutralisation and suppression of air defenses. Secondly; the use of various types of drones for kamikaze attacks, scouting and artillery spotting are likely to be a permanent aspect of conventional conflicts. And thirdly: gun-based anti-air systems like Gepard previously believed to be obsolete are likely to have a renaissance because of the 2nd point because they seem to be the most efficient and cost-effective counters, with perhaps the Tunguska becoming the norm, ie combination short-range missiles and large caliber autocannons

[@Appletank8]

Yeah, turns out not having stealth bombers to get rid of anti-air missiles early on makes aircraft barely capable of penetrating enemy borders.

[@herptek]

Nothing beats a radar-aimed, old school AA gun for drone defence in a cost effective manner. Perhaps they are going to be supplemented in this use by handy emerging technologies like weaponized lasers in this specific role if the unit costs for this kind of equipment can be lowered to reasonably realistic levels. Cost efficient SHORAD is likely going to be an increasing priority for force protection in the future.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

The thought of VADS and PIVADS coming back into service makes me excited. :) It's also imperative to realize the US C-RAM is going to follow us to any bases utilized in conflict just to fend off the done business. Major cities would be protected by similar systems and mobile SHORAD and SPAAG when the enemy is targeting cities vs military targets.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Not just conventional conflicts. especially assymetrical conflicts will set on the surprise factor of such drones for any initial attacks, before any direct anti drone warfare can be put into place by the regular armed forces. What works on abandoned tanks has no more problems with any unarmored vehicles or positions... and as many of these bomb dropping drones are improvised from relatively inexpensive commercial models with mortar rounds or handgrenade style explosives... it's nearly impossible to prevent them being procured in secret.

[@deaks25]

@@Ugly_German_Truths That’s a good point, hadn’t thought of that but yeah asymmetrical warfare will probably evolve from here as well.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A most informative and concise summary of the air war thus far. And just 17 minutes too, a record for a German. Strange seeing such a mix of technology and tactics in this war. Nothing ever turns out the way we expect.

[@major_kukri2430]

I remember seeing you comment everywhere

[@jcarey568]

The first casualty of any battle is the battle plan.

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

I found his analysis and the video in general very underwhelming, in my view he/it did not answer the question in the title "First Year of War: What We Learn from Ukraine" sufficiently nor comprehensibly/satisfactorily. You praised him very much for his analysis in this video, do you feel like he did a good job answering the question? If yes, what did you take away from his answer? I would have liked him to make an effort to really answer the question in the title and to present the information in a way that makes it really comprehensible and clear as to what he/we learned so far, at least that is my humble view, without meaning any harm or bad intentions.

[@cannonfodder4376]

@@Kenny-yl9pc This video was more of a summary of what he and others at say RUSI have seen and discovered over the year. As far as I am concerned, he answered the question quite well.

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

@@cannonfodder4376 I understand and respect your view. May I ask you what you took away as to the answer of what we learned? I don't mean to trap you or to get into an online conflict/debate. I honestly did not get the answer, but I am really curious to know, and as you did get it, I would appreciate it, if you could educate me on this matter.

[@georgevelez6388]

Great Summary. Social Media shows us 100% of the UAV attacks that succeed, and 0% that fail (slightly exaggerated), this is something to keep in mind when pundit claim that UAVs are the future of warfare.

[@quirkyturtle6652]

Dunno why but when you said 0% of the ones that failed it reminded me of the one drone that dropped a grenade and the Russian soldier just tossed it away. (Also as technology advances more and more these UAV will only get better or people will just strap grenade to Amazon drones which is more effective than I would’ve guessed)

[@pinkyfull]

Something I was watching recently is that US sent 1000 switchblade drones to Ukraine but exactly zero videos of them being used have officially been released. Ukraine is clearly very selective of the videos they release and their information warfare is quite wise. For instance we see almost no footage from Zaporizhzhia, except maybe Vuhledar. That isn't an accident and seeing where videos aren't coming from is an indication where future offensives are likely to take place, at least to my armchair general mind.

[@jamesnichols5163]

Ukraine recently admitted they released the TB2 strike footage at a reduced pace so that it would keep boosting moral beyond the first 2 weeks which is all they could us it for offensive missions, compared with only assessing artillery damage, and some target spotting since then - Edit:should have watched full video first where this was mentioned

[@johnmcpudding857]

@@pinkyfull Regarding lacking footage; Contrary to somewhat popular belief, armed forces in civilized countries don't really like to display all of the carnage and destruction that happens when drone strikes are successful. Sure they do want to show they are being successful, but they don't want you to see the entire grim picture, especially up close and personal.

[@PerfectDeath4]

There was a failed drop video that showed the UA drone's grenade get shot because the Russian soldier's bullets were falling short, thus the grenade crossed through the stream of bullets.

[@deckape714]

Chris I consider you a trusted friend please take care of you!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Wow Guy, thanks so much, hope all is well with you!

[@oj8868]

I think one of the main takeaways from the air war in Ukraine is that SEAD/DEAD is one of, if not THE, most important mission sets a modern air force has to prepared for. From our western perspective, we view this topic through the lens of Desert Storm and the intervention in Serbia, where we significantly overmatched our opponents both qualitatively and quantitatively. In a near-peer environment, NATO air dominance will not come as easily and we have to be prepared for it. This also means that we have to invest heavily into GBAD to improve resilience of air defense as a whole, in case we face scenarios in which the airspace is heavily contested. I fear that we currently rely too heavily on the assumption that potential opponents will simply be smashed on the ground or outfought in air.

[@Alf763]

I mean at this stage the only real near peer would be China right?

[@sebbonxxsebbon6824]

It sure isn't Russia, they should be embarrassed at their horrible showing. A completely unprofessional military.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

Which is why the US Army has invested heavily in Land Based VLS systems to use the Navy's Standard Missile systems like SM-2 and SM-6 and is looking at ways to improve the mobility of Patriot and THAAD.

[@danielkol477]

Didn't NATO run dangerously low on PGMs during Yugo campaign and Serbs giving up by luck only because believing NATO having much more?

[@remogatron1010]

@@danielkol477 100 percent wrong

[@Juel92]

I feel like one major lesson from this war is "Don't skimp on pilot hours/maintenance/gear and have an overkill approach to air power". I feel like decisive air power early on really can't be understated. I dunno though, this is me making a super-simple/general take and I could very well be wrong.

[@Noble713]

Marine Aviation C2 Officer here. I wholeheartedly agree. If the Russians had surged maintenance crews and other support so they could fly hundreds of sorties daily for the first 30 days, I think they would have been far more successful at hunting the mobile GBADs. Those GBADs kept them from aggressively destroying Ukrainian *artillery* as the war moved into the summer, and they have just had a snowball effect ever since. Neither side can really break a stalemate because they can't mass combat power in the face of artillery. So airpower needs to destroy the artillery....which they can't do, because both sides are underperforming at SEAD and SCAR (Strike Coordination and Reconnaissance). I also agree with other comments that high-altitude aircraft with precision ordnance are key. If I can accurately target your C2, logistics, and arty from 30,000ft, once I've killed your big SAMs your MANPADS are much less relevant.

[@netmanswe]

No, the war started in 2014, it escalated 24th February 2022.

[@dusk6159]

With even more russian interferences, sucker punches and preparations pre-2014 and pre-Crimea occupation.

[@typxxilps]

a war needs a declaration, otherwise it is called a conflict usually.

[@Donuthan]

Here's your +1 for being a pedant when he's focusing on a topic that only started in February.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

@@dusk6159 if it was Russian interference, why did Yanukovych keep getting elected by such large margins?

[@gviehmann]

​@@typxxilps According to international law, it is sufficient for a state to be attacked or to take part in hostilities in order to become a party to a war.

[@wreckincrew2714]

Great analysis! Straight forward and about as accurate as can be attained so far. Well done.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Greetings from India. During Kargil war in 1999, we found out that unlike old wars where it was necessary to provide close air support to ground forces, it's better if airforce operates almost quasi-independently, destroying strategic targets and such like logistics hubs. PGMs were a massive multiplier , specially when enemy had decentralised air defence ala MANPADS cause those PGMs help in doing strike missions outside their envelope . The Pakistanis fired 100+ stingers at us but managed to hit only 3 planes, of which 2 were destroyed. It seems VKS has very little place for re-evaluating their tactics and have proper contingency plans compared to Western or Indian Airforce. You should read "Airpower at 18000" by Carnaegie institute to properly understand more what I am talking about. We used a MiG- Mirage combo back then, where an LGB would be dropped, and using GPS+ stopwatch combo, dumb payloads would also be dropped on the same target at once.

[@maciek_k.cichon]

I think that India-Pakistani wars are greatly underrated when it comes to experience. Your mix bag of aircraft and their operations is something world should pay more attention to. That said, I hope both nations will keep their heads cool.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

@@maciek_k.cichon Thank you, man. Yes, I don’t want anymore wars between India and Pakistan, or anywhere to be most. But being an Indian, I do believe Indian wars are very overlooked in West. What Russia tried to do in Ukraine, we actually did in 1971, invading then East Pakistan, and liberating it in 13 days with very little casualties, using mainly Soviet and British weapons. How many countries have pulled off such a blitzkrieg in post WW2? Very few, like US in 91 or Israel in 67. But people atleast know of those. Our wars get forgotten by all.

[@KinoTechUSA69]

​@@dragonstormdipro1013 The Indo-Pak conflicts are definitely understudied

[@randompheidoleminor3011]

It could be said that many western air forces and alliances are large enough and capable enough to do both of these at once realistically (if not establish total air supremacy) - as was done in wars as old as WW2

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

You definitely do not want an air force to be operating entirely autonomously if you can help it. Combined arms warfare includes air assets, and if they are used in cooperation with other assets, you will achieve the best results. You want your Air Force to be operating on a strategic level as well, just not only on a strategic level. But doing both at once requires highly skilled personnel and is difficult in the best of times. Most militaries, possibly including India’s, don’t really have the numbers or talent base to do this super effectively. The US leads in this regard due to their basically unlimited resources.

[@ВасильЗамишляєв]

ДЯКУЮ! Гість- глибоко "копає". Клас! АЛЕ я підтримую Ваші висновки, Анатолій! З Боглм!

[@pahtar7189]

I think it's important to acknowledge the dramatic effects of both ship-based surface to surface missiles and shore-based anti-ship missiles. The destruction of Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet put a stop to plans for an amphibious attack near Odesa.

[@Chabbrik]

It was never on the card any way. Too few troops to make a real difference.

[@petersmythe6462]

"Flying around 500 feet" So technically even within the range of Pavel the random civilian firing his Makarov at a Flanker.

[@SouthParkCows88]

We learned we won't be home by Christmas.

[@Kelkschiz]

The biggest takeaways for me are the new role and importance UAVs play. Not the TB2 so much but more so the irregular, often commercial drone assets. These play a role in: reconnaissance, harassing the enemy forces, and information war. It is difficult to assess their true importance, but they seem to have a pretty big impact on information gathering and morale. One wonders what the future of these small menaces will be... My second takeaway is my surprise that the air forces of Ukraine actually seem to have managed to bring Russia to a stalemate. Very few people saw that coming before the war.

[@showtime112]

An excellent presentation, thanks for the effort!

[@jefferynelson]

Thank you for the work you put into the channel. Your audience appreciates you.

[@habodea]

Great use of iconography, really easy to follow.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Glad you liked it!

[@FerociousPancake888]

Thanks for providing the facts. It’s clear both sides puff up or deflate certain statistics which is expected but makes accurate analysis difficult. It would be nice to see things come to an end soon but it’s unlikely to happen. Interesting to see how both sides change and adapt their tactics.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Wow, really glad you did this video, I am much more aware of the situation now than I was before. 1) Actual air Superiority is now a dream, manpads are small light and effective and are a constant danger. 2) For these medium wars conventional airfields continue to be effective. It appears at this level that VSTOL is not yet required. 3) It is possible to intercept and destroy drones but the ammunition requirement is quite high, if widespread protection is desired an increase in the interceptor base by a factor of 10 seems likely. This is an unusual conflict in that normal civilian life more or less is going on. Something like London in the blitz or Berlin in late 44.

[@stupidburp]

This has shown the value of aircraft operating at high altitude with large powerful radars and long range missiles to push strikes to extreme ranges. Both air and ground assets have been targeted this way. This seems to validate large high firepower aircraft over smaller point defense dog fighters in modern air combat. The radar size and this relationship with effective range seems to be a crucial factor.

[@stupidburp]

Going forward, mobile small wheeled vehicles capable of air defense will probably be needed to provide some protection against small UAVs and missiles. Something like a JLTV with an M61 20mm rotary cannon, a variety of optical and radar sensors, and a computer controlled automatic engagement mode. Adding some Stinger missiles would be good too if space and weight permits.

[@colinmartin9797]

Basically, the b52 is gonna be flying for another 100 damn years.

[@Hashishtani]

True, MIG 31s in the war are being used both as fighters and as bombers, despite being interceptors. Huge altitude, huge speed in combination with long range missile. Soon they probably going to be used for dropping new Russian gliding bombs. And it is all after those aircraft are not even in production anymore... few left.

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

​@Stu Bur ohh you mean VADS and PIVADS but with an auto tracking mode?

[@Caffeine_Addict_2020]

I remember 10 years ago when the aircraft community was shitting all over the F-35 - "in a firefight the F-16 eats its lunch", when it is clear now that by and large firefights are a thing of the past

[@pgrinius]

3:40 Chuckled at the ‘Hos-MOTEL’ 😅

[@bholdr----0]

This is excellent... Though I don't know why I am surprised, since this channel is consistently very high quality.... Keep it coming! (And (1, of course)

[@skvUSA]

Wonderful analytics - condense, with attention to details and providing support to most points.

[@MrElliotc02]

Excellent and thoughtful presentation...many thanks

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thanks!

[@anttitheinternetguy3213]

A bit off topic, but My grandfather fought For Finland in both winter- And continuation war. Only thing he Said about The Finnish Air forces was that they were never there when they were needed. I wonder how different The situation is nowadays from infantrymans perspective

[@dusk6159]

The Finnish Air Forces were already doing quite the impossible, after all, and with a rugged vehicles park.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

There's always more infantrymen in need than airframes or pilots.

[@JR-ut2ne]

The Ukrainian Air Force is one of the biggest surprises of the war imo. I‘d never thought that they‘d be able to challenge the VKS over a prolonged period of time yet here we are one year later and they‘re still very much alive and active. May god bless them and the other defenders of Ukraine.

[@hztn]

- You know what? Ukraine Air Forces where fighting with ruzky scum a decades ago in African sky, being a "peacekeepers" from different sides and conflicts. That's still classified...

[@74charger44]

This is a great breakdown of the air war. Thanks Chris for this information.

[@andreylebedenko1260]

5:40 The battle for Gostomel airport arguably saved not just Kyiv but the entire Ukraine.

[@dusk6159]

It was indeed all-around impactful

[@tomlobos2871]

it was a pivoting point for sure.

[@Williestyle-RobotechxMacross-x]

The other "turning point" was wrecking the Russian Marine Infantry attack and flooding their avenue of approach to Kiyv.

[@andreylebedenko1260]

@@ReichLife Arguably. But we've seen the fate of Mariupol.

[@andreylebedenko1260]

@@ReichLife "It took Russians 2 weeks alone to reached eastern side of city" -- exactly. I strongly believe that was mainly because of the cancellation of a massive Russian invasion from Gostomel, due to the failure of the airport capture operation.

[@Topblackbird]

11:52 cut error. Thank for making these videos!

[@fiendishrabbit8259]

While Shaheed drones have been highly visible in media and has been used to cause strategic disruption (and well, terror warfare) the Lancet-3 is probably the most successful use of Loitering munitions. While the Lancet was introduced during the summer the adaptation to use it successfully starts in November, and since then it's probably one of the main threats to key Ukrainian assets such as SPGs, radars and short/medium range AA assets.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Shaheed isn't really a loitering munition though, it's more of a small, very cheap cruise missile

[@malithaw]

Lancet is pretty good stuff given how cheap it is to manufacture.

[@denniskrenz2080]

I think the VKS simply failed to meet our NATO/US expectations of air war. Its not doing a really bad job by USSR/Russian standards, but it seems like Russia would have much worse trouble in a war with a western military than we previously thought, because its airforce simply can't keep up with the pace, in which we (the west) would do air combat. And much less if its about a conflict that lasts longer than a few weeks. Which is all one reason more, beyond the logistics/economic perspective, to give Ukraine western jets, but much more, Ukraine would also need western experience and know-how in operations. Because one day, Russia might figure it out by itself and it would be better, that Ukraine learns it first.

[@xXrandomryzeXx]

We have yet to see a full out non-nuclear war between CSTO and NATO.

[@frankguz55]

I think you are confusing ruSSian Federation and USSR. The latter had a GDP and a military budget comparable to US at the time. ruSSian Federation economy is instead smaller than Spain, with a military budget 20 times smaller than US

[@frankguz55]

​@Alex - Unity well, you are seeing a war between them and a minor country like Ukraine, mostly armed with Soviet-era weapons. Just few Javelins and Himars were able to humiliate the ruSSian army. Just imagine if Ukrainians had F35, Abrams, etc. (right now they don't have any yet, and they are still reliying on T-72, BMP and Mig-29)

[@denniskrenz2080]

@@xXrandomryzeXx We should be lucky if it never happens. But still, for comparison: In the first two weeks of gulf war, when the air force was still ramping up its operations, the CENTAF alone did over 7000 sorties, reaching 400-600 sorties per day by then. Russia is at 1/10th of that number at most. And that includes flights done over the baltic to pretend some presence. It simply operates at a very low pace.

[@kilianortmann9979]

@Hitomi Remind me, who was the first to loose in Afghanistan?

[@oron61]

I wanna imagine being someone seeing this video in 80 years the way we look at war analysis films from 80 years ago today

[@WBtimhawk]

Personally, the one surprising thing that both sides seem to be doing a fair amount of is those indirect rocket attacks (from SU25, Mi-8, Mi-24, etc.). There has been just a few drone shots of their impact area and while the accuracy isn't that bad, the dispersion is quite strong and the payload per rocket isn't that big (even for the S13), so their actual effect on target must certainly be quite low. I would have assumed the tactics to not be worth the precious flying hours. Initially I thought it made sense at least on the UKR side, just to show everybody that they still had an airforce but now I'm just puzzled really.

[@oceanic8424]

Nicely summarized. I would suggest placing the video referral cards at the end of the videos so as to not interrupt the flow of the current video.

[@jm6696]

Very well done, sir

[@BalkanVlach]

I hope the war ends soon, I have family on both sides and everyday it is devastating to see my homelands get destroyed and it’s people killed whether on the Russian or Ukrainian side.

[@e.s.6275]

This war was started like any war with a hope to end soon. And like many in the past, it will not end soon. Too much at stake on both sides, literally. Both the (ex-)empire and its ex-colony are fighting for their solitary existence; this is the fiercest type of fight possible at all... So, put aside your groundless hopes and illusions.

[@davidfuller581]

Given what I've been able to see my armchair analysis is that achieving air superiority relies heavily on SEAD/DEAD being effective. If it's not, then modern(ish) SAMs will shoot your entire air force out of the sky.

[@Destroyer_V0]

accurate sumary. Either eliminate enemy anti air defenses, or invest in technology that makes them expensive paperweights (Like stealth) to just... ignore said defenses.

[@Chabbrik]

@@Destroyer_V0 We are yet to see if stealth is as great asset as it is claimed to be. Would be a monumental embarrasment to USAF if modern AD could drop their stealth planes left right and center.

[@Destroyer_V0]

@@Chabbrik True enough. There is one thing I can accurately say about stealth aircraft though. Even if they are not as effective as NATO hopes. Reducing the time given to your opponent, to see you, lock on, and shoot you, is hopefully enough. Especially with the claimed range of certain russian and chinees anti air weapons, if stealth equipped aircraft are able to not be detected until they is within their own weapons range of whatever is threatening them? it will be enough.

[@Gridlocked]

@@Chabbrik The USAF have been operating stealth airframes for a number of decades and have seen great success in ODS and OIF.

[@Chabbrik]

@@Gridlocked Against laughable air defenses. But those stealth airframes have not been tested against near/peer adversary. Perhaps closest to real test were Israeli incursions against Iran, but even then Iranian defenses are pretty old and ineffective Soviet systems.

[@ivarstikums]

You saying “Hosmotel” is triggering.

[@tomlobos2871]

i highly recommend the channel of "operator starsky" he covered many aspects on the hostomel air assault in his past content. he's the press officer of the local national guard brigade, so maybe even someone to reach out for if any questions.

[@typxxilps]

not so sure if this is a good idea cause Ukraine is also delivering a lot of propaganda. You can not expect the real truth during a war. He also has a mission which is far beyond shooting, but preparing the ground to get supplies from the allies which therefore needs examples how those weapons had been used. But it is also a signal for more , cause more is better during war.

[@tomlobos2871]

@@typxxilps yes, but its a personal perspective. woudn't you want to interview erich hartmann or hj marseille if you had the chance to? if you ignore everything because of a bias, history books would be pretty empty. its up to historians to make conclusions and set this into a neutral perspective. wich has never really been done before the internet age, giving a wider access to information in general. that is why topics are investigated even centuries after they happen, still finding aspects not seen or evaluated before. a bias does not mean that information is entirely false. today we have a better chance to approve or dismiss information even though there is almost too much of it.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@typxxilps everyone is biased. it’s the viewers responsibility to account for that, not the creator’s.

[@jorgsobota2228]

I remember watching his first FAQ near Kyiv in front of a wall with thundering explosions in the background. That was chilling. He's a funny guy and of course biased. No one stays objectice while ones homeland is beeing attacked. What a BS. Oh, and i rather have ukrainian agitprop than the stupid orcish too...

[@tomlobos2871]

@@jorgsobota2228 quite reasonable and honest among warbloggers. his bias is on spot and can be clearly identified where it occurs. i am into media myself, knowing a bit how this kind of job works. if you have to deal with international press everyday and would spread cheap propaganda, you will be dismissed rather sooner than later. saw this with NGO officials a few times when they started to spread pure doctrines instead of answering questions. observing this mil blogger thing, and channels close to military and historical topics since a while now. even before the war. would not recommend a clown doing this just to cheer up moral without providing real information that can be back checked. many of them out there. but some people dismiss anything as propaganda unless it fits into their own belief. and there is a difference in talking to people about the general situation or their own experiences. he told his story about hostomel battle and how they had to retreat in his last stream. wich funny enough started a few minutes after this first comment. btw if i was employed by a bigger media outlet or having a large YT community you would see me filming/photographing in hostomel these days. for the AN-225 alone and not at last to make own conclusions.

[@Leo-yr5jb]

Time seemed to be completely ineffective for the K series, only Mi survives, this is due to the fact that infantry with MANPADS must determine their own or someone else’s and only then shoot, while seeing the K series it is destroyed by heavy fire from the entire MANPADS, heavy machine guns, anti-tank systems. That is, there are heat traps and they work, but for example, a magical Russian IR searchlight with an automatic system for fixing MANPADS launches does not work, which practice shows. K series cannot be confused with Mi, moreover, working in the K series group unmasks the Mi series and signs their sentence. PS You can only learn one thing here if you see Gopnik, you need to beat him, and not be afraid of the mythical escalation.

[@likelike344]

From what information did you conclude the change in Russian proficiency of creating (small) strike packages? Is there a source from which we can learn more about the composition and (rough) tactics and strategies they utilise?

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

All sources are in the description, as always...but I get where you're coming from, so here's a tip: I know; it's a pain that they're not in a 1-minute TikTok format, but you could try perusing them with your browser's search tool. It's usually a magnifying-glass-looking button near the Settings, and you write keywords in it in the same way you're already doing on a daily basis (each time you have to type "BBC" on your naughty wesite's search bar). That should take you straight to what you are looking for, without the hassle of having to actually read. Hope that helps. Cheers, mate!

[@likelike344]

@@Compulsive_LARPer ah douchy sarcastic reply. How useful. You must be a great pal

[@killian9314]

Small detail, but around the implementation of weapons like AGM 88, it saw the return of the TB2 briefly in a combat role, guiding strikes against naval assets and in the front. Russian positions turning off some of their radars to avoid targetting.

[@bruceyawen6160]

This war has brought to us that the grisly reality of attrition warfare is still a thing. Technology alone will not deter a foe which simply does the math and conclude that he can win because he has way more equipment and manpower than you

[@jintsuubest9331]

US has been doing attrition warfare for the last 2 decade? Against dudes in dirt shed?

[@bruceyawen6160]

@@jintsuubest9331 it was hardly attrition, more like shooting turkeys...

[@kingkarlito]

For the past 6 months they have been ineffectually throwing equipment and manpower at Bakhmut, attrition warfare has been a complete failure so far

[@colincampbell767]

That is because neither side has the ability to conduct large scale combined arms operations. The Russians had the equipment - but they didn't have the training and skills. The Ukrainians have the skills - but need the training and equipment. We should have started pulling M1A1s and Bradley's out of storage, refurbishing them, and then train the Ukrainians how to use them. Then form Armored and Infantry battalion task forces and send them to the NTC at Fort Irwin to train combined arms warfare against an opponent that has all the advantages. (When US soldiers were saying after the Gulf War that their training was harder than real combat - this was courtesy the NTC.)

[@Chabbrik]

@@colincampbell767 Strongly disagree. COmbined arms operations are often doomed due to lack of artillery dominance. Modern Artillery is so lethal that it can stop in its track next to any offence. Before you can proceed with maneuver warfare you need to suppress enemy guns. That's why even successful Kherson campaign was such a bloody affair. Your Abrams and Bradleys would be a steaming pile of metal junk if Russian artillery is not suppressed in the offensive.

[@abdulmismail]

Watching your video covering the air war in Ukraine and HistoryLegends channel of the ground campaign is providing a much more accurate report on the actual events; moreso than the mainstream media - who, here in the UK, seem only to be interested in cheerleading for one side while its military experts over exaggerate Ukrainian victories and vastly over estimate Russian losses.

[@zombieoverlord5173]

Dude History Legends is a clown who uses RT as his source. He's been wrong about everyone of his claims and is resulting to clickbait

[@WimsicleStranger]

Why would they ‘cheerleader’ for the Russians? The Russians have been literally threatening to turn the West into nuclear glass for the past 60 years! Any amount of funding and equipment that results in any amount of Russian casualties is a good investment.

[@arkadyromanov7803]

The ghost of kyiv is cool and real and my friend.

[@xXE4GLEyEXx]

I will be off topic a bit, but for me the question has a simple answer... what I have learned is how easily people fall for propaganda and dehumanize the other side on Both sides.

[@jintsuubest9331]

That's war since the day of caveman.

[@5678sothourn]

Dehumanization is necessary to wage war

[@Ivzu]

Sorry, but one side is the agressor. People were making fun of Americans for their crap in Iraq, and now it's Russias turn.

[@isuckatusernames4297]

call me a hypocryte but I wouldn't trust a russian orc to not actively try to slaughter as many civilians as possible.

[@antonkucherov9215]

can you give an example of Russians dehumanizing Ukranians?

[@specialnewb9821]

Low level flight is much harder on airframes no? That could explain maintenance challenges. Also one of the most frustrating things is the utter lack of anything regarding the Phoenix Ghost drones. The US continues to include them in large numbers in aid packages, so they must be doing something but you'd think even if Ukraine kept it quiet, that Russia would have been bound to get their hands on something regarding it but we've heard nothing from them either. A total information black hole!

[@crafty_android]

Great concise analysis thanks

[@bohdanhovorun3078]

Welcome to Hos Motel California... Such a lovely place....

[@onogrirwin]

Very much appreciate the return to objectivity

[@ethanthompson431]

11:47 i think something went wrong in the editing here

[@reggievonramstein]

Yes,

[@patnolen8072]

Yes I thought it switched scenes in mid-sentence.

[@jimiorezzoli]

Danke, this clears up many aspects of the aviation side of things. Very interesting and helpful in understanding what's taking place.

[@ThePeterMann]

That was a good caveat at the end. Needed.

[@1k20a]

Let's not forget that the Russians while in charge of Ukraine took apart the Ukrainian military, the fact Ukraine was able to rebuild the military with very little and fight back the Russians shows how much more heart the Ukrainians have

[@pasindupereraSL]

The Ukrainians do have a lot of heart. But the real reason Ukraine is surviving is due to western help. They have been the main source of supplies and intel for the Ukrainians. Which is important as Ukraine has been burning through equipment

[@antred11]

@@pasindupereraSL Which is why the west must stop sending tiny amounts of equipment every few months and get serious about supporting Ukraine!

[@pasindupereraSL]

@@antred11 Exactly. The Ukrainians need drone and artillery, lots and lots of artillery. I also don't really see how them getting 4 different kinds of tanks will help. It will only complicate logistics.

[@johnrussell3755]

good analysisthis sums up one year of war

[@louisquatorze9280]

Excellent summary!

[@nathanchristensen824]

Excellent summary! Thank you!

[@tordsteiro9838]

Thanks for a short and informative analysis! What I find most telling, is that complex operations are hard to do, and requires the right equipment, the right logistics, the right command and control, the right intelligence, and the right training and preparation. Furthermore, that the efficiency of your forces falls dramatically if complex operations are out of reach. Secondly, the increasing role of drones and various unmanned systems. It appears to me that the prospects for air campaign are increasing, while the necessary roles to be filled by manned platforms is decreasing, telling me that unmanned systems may be more important than manned systems in the not so distant future, even if manned systems still have an important role to play.

[@robertbehrendt8685]

My takeaway: (1) Old fashioned war aims lead to modernized old fashioned war with drones, artillery, tanks, bombings, trench fights. (2) Russian Airforce seems to be much weaker, than anticipated or air defence of Ukraine is much better, than previously thought. (3) -Modernized artillery regained most of its importance and fighting distance matters a lot (4) Drones makes it difficult to hide the preparations for new actions, (5) The flow of information, fast information processing, fast provision of information to the troops and the ability to use this information in time are crucial for success. These data will be analyzed later. (6) Even Ukraine war is a modern war, big numbers of soldiers, artillery rounds fired result in a hard and bloody achieved success for Russian troops (7) The easiest way for Russia to win that conflict is to cut the political support from western allies and Russia tries hard at the propaganda front.

[@pogo1140]

Re hiding preparations, look up D-Day prep when the Allies knew they would never be able to hide their build up, they created entire ghost battalions of armor, vehicles and aircraft for the germans to see

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

(2) Ukrainian air defense is quite strong and Russian aren't good in suppression of air defense. (3) Yeah, and most estimates concerning needed amount of artillery shells stored should have extra zero added. ;) (yes, both sides are desperately looking for exotic third parties that have some extra large caliber shells and would like a suitcase of cash) (7) Most likely the only path for Russia to victory was going full mobilisation before war / in first days of war. To win through propaganda front they would have to knock down both US and Poland. Which is highly unlikely as Americans were not even relying on Russian energy sources, while Polish see themselves as next on Russian list. Getting a friendly gov in a one or two EU countries would make slight difference in number of weapons shipped.

[@dusk6159]

@Hitomi Nice nonsensical propaganda piece with a bunch of outlandish anti-NATO spasms, desperately hammered out multiple times throughout the comment.

[@dusk6159]

Old fashioned war situations too, I would say: the rugged russian forces are so in the brink that they can only rely on domino-bets centered around capturing/grinding minuscule portions of territories, far away in Eastern Ukraine.

[@pogo1140]

@Hitomi 2. Russian Next Gen FIghters - You mean the SU-57? The US is building more F-35's per month than the Russians have built in a year. 6th Gen, a US 6th gen prototype has already flown and they've ordered the timeline to be sped up, the Russian 6th gen from what I find is still a dream. 3. Artillery and terrain, The US via SAAB/Boeing have a solution for that. 4. Ukrainians are still using attack drones, they are doing so in cooperation with Ukrainian ECM units. 7-China, China's economy is about 17% of the world's economy but it depends on exports to the country that has 25% of the world's economy.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

If I had to pick one moment where Russia definitely lost the Battle of Kyiv, it was the airport. The West owes the men who defended that airport a great deal.

[@schakiarligonde1736]

The air assault operation was a bad idea without having air superiority they really didn’t expect any resistance

[@davidbrennan660]

Interesting briefing.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I hope Putin goes away, for whatever reason, and some moderate takes his place, because it would be fascinating to compare notes from both sides and get at the truth.

[@mensch1066]

Historically speaking Russian leaders who are deemed to have failed militarily are replaced by people more hardline than them (e.g. Peter III by Catherine the Great; Paul I by Alexander I; Khrushchev by Brezhnev). Also, it's likely that the people most likely to flee Russia over the last year were precisely the same people who would have led some sort of outsider takeover of the governing apparatus. It's a nice thought though.

[@Mr_Fancypants]

I want that crook of a zelenski gone

[@Stlaind]

I'm curious what moderate you think is positioned to take his place

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

I hope he would crash Russia first.

[@Akm72]

While that would be interesting, there are no moderates left. Putin's replacements will be worse than he is.

[@sussymaximo9014]

It's nice seeing that my personal theory that drones werent as effective as they were being portrayed in social media be proven right by a reputable source.

[@dogsnads5634]

There were actually people writing about how the TB2 was stealthy in the early days of the war....a prop plane stealthy...

[@adamfrazer5150]

Sidebar : thoroughly enjoy your diagnostic approach man, so much initial info last year with few waiting for the dust to settle a little bit before taking to tweets. Really appreciate a bit of study and objectivity 👍 I find the visuals pair well with the context your offering - it's my paint-by-numbers brain asking this, but would there be a chance of giving the negative or disadvantage icons a red wash or outline ? It's likely my brain seeking to do the least work possible, as usual, but I figured there's no harm in asking. It's good content and comparable videos are either all talk and defense contractor product trailers or tend to lose me in a sea of info I can't hope to read into that deeply before the video shifts focus. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, and the presence of a genuine, forthcoming presenter 👍🍻🇨🇦

[@johnmoorefilm]

Thanks Christoph, very good take

[@hardykornfeld1733]

Fair and balanced reporting (unlike Fox).

[@MANC2311]

RGD-5 is getting a new lease of life.

[@yuyuyu25]

So given how lots of people started harping on how tanks are supposedly obsolete due to this war, how come people aren't claiming the helicopter is obsolete?

[@Ivzu]

Depends, I'd say that Kiowa warrior would do quite well in this situation as the mast mounted targeting package allows it to take cover behind the treeline and still guide the missile.

[@louisquatorze9280]

Some are.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

"how come people aren't claiming the helicopter is obsolete?" Maybe there is so limited in enthusiasm in using helicopters / most fighters in their intended role, that people even don't see many photos of them getting downed? :D Though here I also wonder whether anyone is satisfied with their value for money and is asking for much more helicopters next time... With tanks there is at least strong argument, that there is not much alternative.

[@kingkarlito]

did you hit your head and wake up thinking it's still July 2022?

[@hztn]

What should World learn after this year in 4 words: dont f-ck with Ukraine! Hello from Kyiv!

[@CyberSystemOverload]

Hello from the Philippines, really excellent video thank you. I have a question: for how long can Western powers keep sending weapon systems, ammunition to Ukraine before their OWN stocks start to run low? Just to the north of us is Taiwan....a tinderbox in the waiting. Is China waiting till USA's massive (but finite) stocks of Javelins, HIMARS, artillery shells etc. run low before looking to Taiwan? Its a very worry I have, is it a valid worry?

[@uku4171]

The US will not compromise their own security for Ukraine. It is mostly sending older equipment to Ukraine, and they have the capacity to manufacture huge amounts of the newer systems like the HIMARS. Artillery shells are a bit of an issue as the West doesn't use artillery nearly as much as Ukraine does. Artillery shell production is now being expanded in Europe and the US. They are also produced by allies like South Korea, which has a massive production capability for artillery systems and shells due to the threat posed by North Korea.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

The US didn't win WW2 just by relying on old stocks. They still have a formidable industrial base to make weapons, a well-oiled logistics system that rivals ALL shipping companies on Earth and an economy that can spare money paying for all that...

[@uku4171]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 "an economy that can spare money paying for all that" You mean trillions in debt?

[@abrakadabra746]

It's not Hosmotel airport but HostoMEL.

[@marcossencar3035]

Hello,would you please recomend a book or file about jet engines?Especially the ones like the p80 or the de haviland vampire.

[@BullGator-kd6ge]

Should’ve talked more about the Saky airbase attack. I remember it was a game-changer and everyone wanted to know what happened and how it happened.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

We can say that an attack or the introduction of a new weapon system makes a big difference without calling them “game changers”.

[@BullGator-kd6ge]

@@MarcosElMalo2 Considering that in one afternoon 10 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged, thousands of Russians living in Crimea fled in fear, and forced Russia to strengthen its aerial defenses in the aftermath, and showed that Ukraine was able to touch targets deep in Crimea.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

@@BullGator-kd6ge you really need to stop huffing copium prop from Ukros. It's making you look like an idiot.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Engels too. They all had similar effects to breaching the Black Sea Fleet’s defenses: rendering them nearly useless.

[@bohuslavhumplik6744]

Great Work!

[@earlyriser8998]

i don't want to be a GI in the trench hearing a buzzing noise above ..that is what I have learned

[@colincampbell767]

There are ways to reduce the effectiveness of drones. The first is simple old-fashioned camouflage. (Add in decoy fighting positions.) The second is properly made fighting positions that have overhead cover.** Place lightweight fishing nets over your positions. Push lightweight ESM gear to the front lines to locate the operators and engage them with mortars or artillery. (Something that has been occurring in Ukraine is that being a drone operator has become a very dangerous job because you're broadcasting a signal that announces your exact location.) ** We absolutely need to start sending several thousand proximity artillery fuses to Ukraine each month. These detonate the shell 15 feet in the air showering fragments that will kill or injure anybody within 50 meters. And will wipe out Russian trenches.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Yeah, I think that AA might just be too good for anything except 5th Gen aircraft. It's just far too dangerous for high value assets, now.

[@supermilo]

Who would have thought there would be demand for Bofors 40mm AAA in 2022...

[@EricTheActor805]

Winners -Artillery in all forms -Ground based Air Defense in all forms, especially Manpads -ATGMs -Light and Motorized Infantry -Drones Losers -Attack Helicopters -Tanks and IFVs

[@FinsburyPhil]

Excellent summary Chris, thanks.

[@amithrodrigo87]

perfect ! well done.

[@ronaldbiavaschi]

Nobody seems to learn from the past, we're doomed to repeat ourselves

[@killer147896325]

I would like a whole breakdown from you

[@BorisZech]

2:39: it is Hostomel ;)

[@TheSaniloGuy]

The main takeaway, in my opinion, is supremacy of ground air defense over air offense, at least as far as traditional airplanes. If you do not posses stealth technology, you are a glorified booster stage for missiles. If you do posses stealth, you are so ridiculously expensive it might be more rational to buy a tens or hundreds of cheaper drones instead.

[@acephantom903]

With the NATO doctrine, the air forces operate as long range and flexible air defenses. Soviet doctrine was more focused on ground air defenses. Ukraine being a former Soviet nation never had a chance to swap away from that doctrine and must rely on their ground based air defenses. Russia is a bit more flexible because they have somewhat updated their air fleet. I am interested in seeing how effective the Western ground based air defenses hold up as the soviet systems run out of ammunition. They were never the focus of NATO development. Will they be just as effective as the soviet systems? Will they be too expensive to keep supplied? Seems like we will find out in time.

[@patliao556]

Thousands of cheaper drones do not add up to the capability to penetrate contested airspace. Stealth is a qualitative feature, it can't be mimicked by quantity. You might be able to achieve greater effects in terms of gross payload, but wars are not won by putting your air force's payload on a scale, they're won by striking objectives, and no quantity of drones will allow them to act outside of their capabilities.

[@pinkyfull]

GBAD in the Soviet Military was always a priority, as they knew they probably couldn't invest in the kinds of airforce that western militaries could. What we are seeing her eis what happens when you don't have an entire military built around the idea that before you even sniff in a major conflict you will do several months of SEAD/DEAD missions to suppress those defenses. In a world where there is little suppression, from either side, air can't be brought to bear and that is why artillery takes precedence. Effectively, the modern high tempo war that we are accustomed to in the West, can easily revert to slow infantry and tank slogs through trench covered terrain when you lose one of the legs of combined arms warfare - Aircraft. However, you can still do combined arms sans aircraft, problem is that you are likely to suffer heavy equipment and manpower losses doing so.

[@Chabbrik]

It is not known if stealth really works against a near peer opponent. What if it really doesn't?

[@acephantom903]

@@Chabbrik It does, just probably not how you think it does. Stealth planes can and will be detected with strong enough radars, however the range that you detect that there is something there is greatly reduced and then being able to lock is even shorter ranged. For example: An S-400 system would probably detect a F-22 Raptor 60 miles away and lock it around 50 miles away, but it would have detected a F-15 200 miles away. The difference is massive in a tactical scale. Another way to look at is that a F-22 would detect a Su-35 from about 150 miles away but the Su-35 wouldn't detect the F-22 until it is within 30 miles. I don't remember the theoretical ranges for the F-35 since it isn't as stealthy, but the point is that stealth technology can apply pressure on the side without it without that side knowing there is a threat or where it is if they did know. Imagine how scary it is if you know there is another fighter jet in the engagement zone but not knowing where it is and suddenly getting radar lock alerts.

[@nco_gets_it]

For my own thoughts, I was surprised from the beginning that Russia was not attempting to overwhelm Ukrainian AD by pushing large numbers of planes forward and how little their SEAD efforts really did in providing them access to targets overall. Also, it is almost impossible to know what the operational plan actually was for the Russians, from an American perspective it appears that air power was never really considered as a primary contributor. Is this due to innate Russian weaknesses, overestimation of strengths, or fear of AD capabilities? One can only wonder. Going forward, the keys to mitigating the drone/UAV threat will likely be found and Ukraine will get it first. Hundreds of big brains at DARPA are likely already finalizing those mitigations/systems. It may also be likely that if Russia's inability to win a decisive outcome on the ground continues, they may turn to airpower and "eat" the losses. Assuming, of course, the losses have already crippled real capabilities.

[@andrii.romaniuk]

Just to mention why the invaders didn't achieve air superiority in Ukraine: 250 S-300 launchers, 100+ Osa, 100+ Strela-10M, 70+ Buk-M1 and all verities of anti-air guns like self-propelled Shilka(300+) or Tunguska(70+) + MANPADS(Soviet like Igla and then Western).

[@Axterix13]

It is a doctrine difference. The US/NATO doctrine is to establish air superiority, and use that to pound the enemy into the ground and then six feet below it. The Soviet doctrine is the reverse of that... to deny air superiority, counter the enemy air force as much as possible, enough so that you can still fly support sorties and such, but mostly leave it to the ground forces. Russia's strategy hasn't really changed from that. Hence why the US has a heavy focus on SEAD/DEAD, while Russia has a heavy focus on SAMs, including very long range ones. What Russia did in the early days of the war was pretty much what they were supposed to do, according to their doctrine. Just the ground war didn't play out according to plan. And, of course, it wasn't like Desert Storm either, where the air force had weeks before hand to shape the battle field. And they were also going after a former WARSAW Pact state, one with that same doctrine, so that probably didn't help either. Which isn't to say there aren't other factors, like budget issues limiting maintenance and pilot training, failing to adapt quickly to the changing conditions, and potentially not even being able to do so adequately. But, well, that's the type of analysis that'll have to wait until people can actually dive into the records.

[@Chabbrik]

Russian army is an artillery army, not air force army, like US military.

[@Williestyle-RobotechxMacross-x]

The solution to drones already exists - the "Iron Dome" and "Iron Beam" systems from Israel.

[@richardmeyeroff7397]

@@Williestyle-RobotechxMacross-x Maybe. the Israeli systems are used against short range ballistic missiles not drones. While they may be a good base to work not sure they are the best or only answer.

[@jeffcurrey8765]

Good summary- thanks! Seems like "Air war over Ukraine = stalemate" is a win for Ukraine. We have yet to see what air power in combined arms offensive means on todays battlefield.

[@stevepowsinger733]

Thanks. I did not know these details about drone history. This area of the the war seems to be evolving fast. I didn’t know so many were shot down. You wonder what anti-drone defenses have been developed. Can radar even pick them up?

[@grahamlawlor8361]

Could you be more specific about the misconceptions you mentioned at the end of the video? What conclusions did you draw prematurely?

[@asagk]

The development of means of unmanned warfare has been foreseeable for a long time and will not only have a significant impact on air combat, but also on armored vehicles. It is only a matter of time before drones are developed specifically for combating main battle tanks, and these then have to be made significantly smaller and more mobile as targets in order to still have a realistic survivability in the battlefield in the aftermath. --- But this development was foreseeable years ago. The size of equipment of warfare have been steadily decreasing for decades with the same effectiveness and are usually significantly cheaper and more flexible than their classic counterparts. Air and ground drones (or highly mobile modern tankettes) are just a logical step in the development of modern ordnance for a small price tag per piece when produced in masses. The wars had become too expensive along with all the fancy developments on the equipment side already. Smaller gear, just as powerful but harder to detect and engage, will sooner or later be the new trend already for sheer cost reasons. The conflict in Ukraine just accelerates the development that is going to take place in the future anyways.

[@Walterwaltraud]

Outstanding work!

[@AlmaBuru]

Hostomel, not Hosmotel

[@gregoryschmitz2131]

The takeaway is that the VKS was never able to establish Air Superiority and what little mid range missions over Ukraine has been shoved back to just front lines. CAS is no longer a viable Air Mission (contested air space) unless you have Precision Weapons. The incredible aspect is Ukraine fought the VKS to an aerial draw (or worse) and that is a fantastic outcome for them. Aerial missions over Russia were never feasible long term and keeping it a draw or contested over Ukraine is outstanding. Unmanned Aerial Munitions is really a separate aspect and is Unmanned Recon.

[@martindice5424]

My main takeaway Chris is that Ukraine is still fighting and Russian forces seem to be desperately trying to adapt to what their enemy is doing rather than imposing their intent upon them. We shall see but I fear this needless horror show will continue for far too long. The Russians have lost - even if they achieve their aims of eastern Ukrainian usurpation. I refer you to the latest presentation by Perun. A medium nation still convinced it’s an empire. As a Brit I get it … But… 🤔

[@NM-wd7kx]

As a fellow Briton the situation really does remind me of an us & Ireland situation, years of colonial control, resistance, & the similarities between the potato famine & the Holodimor.

[@ryder6070]

Did you not call yourself Bismark??? what happened man?

[@brianoneil9662]

Having been in air defense myself, hopefully the Ukrainian ADA crews arw employing limited and controlled sweeps to offset ARM lockons.

[@maltnz]

No mention of the use of Internet, Telegram etc. to gain international support ?

[@mikemontgomery2654]

I’m still not convinced that arming the Ukrainians with F-16s is going to do much. Another YT creator I watch on this subject and, based on the data he was able to collect, noticed that there had been a slight uptick in Russian kills against the Ukrainian forces. This uptick was brought about by the Mig-31, firing long range missiles from within Russia, itself. They can guide their missiles towards a target for the majority of, if not the full distance to the target. I feel like that would be the biggest threat against the F-16, along with GBAD.

[@sectero9450]

It will give them ability to use f-16 weaponry to strike ground targets.

[@mikemontgomery2654]

@@sectero9450 how can they strike any ground targets if they get shot down before reaching those targets? Make this make sense.

[@sectero9450]

@@mikemontgomery2654 what is idea for example of tomahawk?

[@mikemontgomery2654]

@@sectero9450 you tell me. You’re the one thinking the F-16 is going to make a difference in Ukraine. I’m saying it won’t and it’ll likely result in an escalation to the war.

[@sectero9450]

@@mikemontgomery2654 What is escalation of war? Both sides use every weapon they can use. F-16 opens way to use air to ground rockets that could strike on jammers and active radars. So any radar system is now in danger, that is how tomahawk for example work.

[@George_M_]

Drones are here to stay and you better have economical counters. And airspace control is actually super difficult against a near equal peer military.

[@dukenukem8381]

Oh i needed a video to make me sleepy