It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.
The US will bomb the shit out of anyone, but the spaces they've held on the ground have been like Kabul and the Green Zone. The US will come in and hold just the airport and be like we own it.
It probably as someone has stated before a doctrine issue. The USSR and Russia afterwards strategic planning never envisioned a scenario in which they would be able to have or maintain air superiority long term over hostile territory and instead is focused on defense and retaliatory actions.
It makes sense when you look at Russia's primary potential enemies are. Also when you factor in Russia's previous military engagements have all be low level conflicts in which there wasn't any form contestable air space.
True. Russia has the longest borders in the world with nations of various hostility. Their entire history of modern military doctrine has been "can we defend ourselves against massive, land based armies long enough, utilizing tactical retreats and scorched earth while the war machine gets going?". Mobile anti air platforms that can fall back with mechanized units while production and conscription ramps up is certainly helpful as compared to immobile air bases. Once you get the massive war machine operational, you can build enough ground forces and mobile AA to cover for that weakness. After all, if you have the most powerful air force in the world but an enemy army overruns your airfields, what good are those planes?
Conversely, the US has to utilize amphibious landings to engage in the most likely theatres of war, and as you know, an amphibious landing without air superiority is simply a fancy way to waste resources and men.
The US will bomb the shit out of anyone, but the spaces they've held on the ground have been like Kabul and the Green Zone. The US will come in and hold just the airport and be like we own it.