... people point out to Sy Hersh and his "denigrating" of Russian Army. Let me explain something:
1. Sy Hersh may be a very good investigative journalist with zero background in military science, engineering science and Russia. He may know who blew up NS 2, but he wouldn't know the difference between shit and shinola in any serious issue related to Russia as a whole, and Russian Armed Forces in particular.
2. He denigrates himself when waxing "strategic" because he wouldn't know what strategy of Russia both on national level and, especially, on the military one is--for that one should have a solid military-intel background. Sy Hersh has neither even if one considers, as many professionals in Russia do, that he is a conduit for important leaks from one of the power blocks within US political power structure. He certainly should stick to what he does best and that is investigate a government level mischief.
Which brings us to this issue. In my latest video I already stated--it doesn't matter what NATO supplies to whatever is left of 404, it would make no difference on operational and strategic level, and as you may remember military science axiom--wars are won on operational and strategic levels. Couple of lucky sorties, a leaker or two on some target in Russia, or any other trick for the consumption of the fanboys and military hardware masturbators make absolutely no difference for the outcome. Lt.Colonel Daniel Davis gets it and lists only some issues related to modern air combat for US fighter planes:
For starters, it will take a long time to adequately train Ukrainian pilots and maintenance crews to be able to fly the jets into combat and keep them airworthy. In February, Undersecretary of Defense Colin Kahl said it would take between 18 and 24 months to get pilots and maintenance crews trained, airframes procured, and delivered on site for use. Yet a leaked Air Force assessment leaked last Thursday suggested the training time might be as few as four months. Even if that were true — and in all likelihood that would get pilots to a minimum capacity to fly the jets but be far from proficient in air-to-air combat — the process to identify F-16s from partner countries, get them airworthy, and then deliver them with the full contingent of maintenance supplies, spare parts, and ammunition, will likely take into 2024.
There is little likelihood, therefore, the fighters will see combat over the skies of Ukraine this year. Secondly, while the F-16 is clearly one of the best fourth-generation fighter jets in the world, its primary effectiveness is predicated on being one component in an integrated command and control battle management system of sensors. While the jet is capable of operating on its own, it is far less capable without additional acquisition assets, such as the E-3 Sentry AWACS. To date, there has been no discussion of providing this capability to Ukraine. Third, the F-16 is not a stealth aircraft. It was first delivered to the active Air Force in 1979, and it is vulnerable to Russian air defenses, such as the S-300 and more advanced S-400 air defense systems. One of the reasons the Ukrainian Air Force has played such a minimal role in this war has been their inability to neutralize the Russian air defense networks. While the F-16 is more capable than the MiG-29s the Ukrainians have been using, it is still vulnerable to attack by Russia’s air defenses.
This today's piece gets it somewhat, but here is the issue which is going to irritate many rah-rah boys who learned about modern air combat from the Top Gun: Maverick school of the advanced military studies and who still cannot wrap their brains around this simple fact: NO modern US pilot, even the Senator Kelly, ever flew any mission under the conditions of high density Air Defense, EW and being outgunned and outranged by the enemy's Air Force. None, zero, zilch, nada and, consequently, lacking practical (emphasis--PRACTICAL) tactical and operational experience and all necessary tactical and operational data, they are reduced to theoretical study of experiences of those very few Ukie and possibly NATO pilots who survived more than one mission against Russians.
Moreover, Russian Air Force Beyond Visual Range (BVR) against capable MiG-29s, Su-27 and Su-24 of Ukie AF is staggering--a wet dream for very many in NATO Air Forces. Moreover, USAF NEVER operated against the best air defense in the world. Davis forgets that air domain in SMO is stuffed with not just S-300 or S-400s, nope, Tor-M2s, S1 Pantsirs, let alone Buk-M2 and M3, not to mention S-350 Vityaz are all there and it is them who create the most hostile air environment in history, as Ukie AF learned the hard way. Here are their losses in fixed and rotary wing aircraft:
The Russian forces have allegedly suffered heavy casualties in the months-long battle for the strategic Donbass city of Artyomovsk, US President Joe Biden told journalists at the G7 summit in the Japanese city of Hiroshima on Sunday. “The truth of the matter is that Russians have suffered over 100,000 casualties in Bakhmut [Artyomovsk in Russia]. That is hard to make up,” the US president claimed, without revealing the source of this information. He then downplayed Russia’s capture of the city by saying that “there are not many buildings left standing in Bakhmut” and calling it a “pretty devastated city.”
Russia is ready for any contingency, including even the suicidal decision by Washington to throw whatever forces of the US Army they will be able to assemble. They will have the fate similar to VSU and that is why Russian Ground Forces have roughly half-a-million fresh and well trained troops in a strategic reserve in the rear. In this case, F-16s in 404 are just a desperate gesture against the background of a catastrophic military-economic collapse of the combined West and regimes who drove Western Civilization into the ground and who are feeling the pinch. In related news: war crimes tribunals are set up by victors and the West ain't victor. But I am sure they know it in D.C. and Brussels, right?