[Goose]

I think we have seen all the capabilities Russia has, excepting NBC. 




At this stage, they are using S300 SAMs as ground attack missiles, elite frogmen as grunt infantry, and bringing up 60 year old tanks, so I don't think they are holding much back in reserve. If A-50s and S400s could take out low flying Ukrainian Su25s, they wouldn't still be flying combat sorties, not 5 months into the war and with Ukraine having perhaps 20-30 operational at start of war with maybe 5-10 supplied in parts since start of it.

I would buy that argument in a minute if Russia had attempted that and failed. So far as I know, they didn't try, which is why I said it was weird. The have tried lots of other things repeatedly that didn't work, why not this one? They are using anti-ship missiles as ground attack missiles, yet they are unwilling to fire a bunch of R-77s at Su25s? Makes no sense unless they somehow think using the A-50 carries some other risk we are unaware of. The other possibility is that they are now going to try it.

All that being said this is probably mostly academic, as in any counteroffensive the Ukrainian AF will probably play a limited role just because they are not that numerous, and GMLRS and Excalibur rounds can probably provide more accurate close fire support anyway.

On this we totally agree. The SU25s main benefit is to function as a "fire brigade" where help is needed but there are no nearby alternatives. They move much faster than artillery or HIMARS. They can also strike deeper than artillery and HIMARS (lacking ATACMS) but only at significant risk and therefore probably won't be used that way. Agree they are not numerous enough to be a major force.

[Goose]

I think we have seen all the capabilities Russia has, excepting NBC. 




At this stage, they are using S300 SAMs as ground attack missiles, elite frogmen as grunt infantry, and bringing up 60 year old tanks, so I don't think they are holding much back in reserve. If A-50s and S400s could take out low flying Ukrainian Su25s, they wouldn't still be flying combat sorties, not 5 months into the war and with Ukraine having perhaps 20-30 operational at start of war with maybe 5-10 supplied in parts since start of it.

I would buy that argument in a minute if Russia had attempted that and failed. So far as I know, they didn't try, which is why I said it was weird. The have tried lots of other things repeatedly that didn't work, why not this one? They are using anti-ship missiles as ground attack missiles, yet they are unwilling to fire a bunch of R-77s at Su25s? Makes no sense unless they somehow think using the A-50 carries some other risk we are unaware of. The other possibility is that they are now going to try it.

All that being said this is probably mostly academic, as in any counteroffensive the Ukrainian AF will probably play a limited role just because they are not that numerous, and GMLRS and Excalibur rounds can probably provide more accurate close fire support anyway.

On this we totally agree. The SU25s main benefit is to function as a "fire brigade" where help is needed but there are no nearby alternatives. They move much faster than artillery or HIMARS. They can also strike deeper than artillery and HIMARS (lacking ATACMS) but only at significant risk and therefore probably won't be used that way. Agree they are not numerous enough to be a major force.