Great interview! Yes, I would love to hear about the U.S. air defense capabilities against a potential pre-emptive attack on its bases in the Pacific by the CCP.
Aren't laser-based defense systems already developed? I've heard of a couple from Israel (Iron Beam aka Light Shield and Lite Beam) and at least one from the US (DE M-SHORAD).
That was a very interesting discussion. Thank you both! On the issue of smoke generation for air defence, Russia has emplaced smoke generators as part of the defences for the Kerch Strait bridge. So perhaps their doctrine for smoke to is use it for particularly high value infrastructure. I doubt that they would use smoke in a wider sense, like in the examples you cited. In those cases, the defenders were acting under the total air dominance of the enemy (Western) Air power. Russia, on the other hand, is operating it's own air power in many of the areas where Ukraine is attacking with drones, especially those that use optical or IR guidance. Any use of smoke by the Russians would surely interfere with their own airborne systems as much as with those of Ukraine. Isn't it also the case that Ukraine is not making widespread use of smoke generation? Presumably for similar reasons.
The critical issue with air defence that has low integration and low to no automation is operator skill. Sending your S300 crews to fight as Infantry is epic stupidity and under value of training and combat readiness. Shooting down civilian aircraft that look nothing like a drone or missile shows the incompetence of the crew. Civilian flights are incompatible with military operations.
didnt ukraine use russian systems mostly ? and they stopped russia airplanes first 2 years. Or am I wrong? patriot is short range and very few em delivered and many destroyd by iskander.
Ukrainian planes would also not be able to get into Russian airspace. Drones, missiles do - which is true the other way around too. Also iskander destroyed patriots is not really a thing. And the last thing: patriots are not short ranged per se. That's up to the interceptors. There are +150 km ones.
People like this scare me. Reason being is they can play both sides. They can advise companies on how to design new systems to counter existing systems and then design systems to make those systems obsolete. Repeat. Repeat. It's not advisable to trust a person as such when there's so much to gain by exploiting your position with little oversite.
Do you have any questions for a future episode featuring Michael?
Great interview! Yes, I would love to hear about the U.S. air defense capabilities against a potential pre-emptive attack on its bases in the Pacific by the CCP.
@@SamuelDividends Thank you Samuel! Great point. I will make sure we talk about that in our next discussion!
@@askolageopolitics Awesome thank you!
Aren't laser-based defense systems already developed? I've heard of a couple from Israel (Iron Beam aka Light Shield and Lite Beam) and at least one from the US (DE M-SHORAD).
Can you both mention like the top 10 or top 5 air defense
Again, very good. Worth the time, surely.
This was an excellent and VERY informative discussion. Thanks for posting. 👍
Verry interesting interview!
I have been looking for such a discussion about air defense for years 😮
Really insightful discussion. Thank you both.
Thank you so much for your work, Joni 🙏👍
A wonderful overview of air defense considerations.
this is such a good interview!
Very interesting, great job!
Just found your channel great find
Which defence contractors fund Rand?
That was a very interesting discussion. Thank you both!
On the issue of smoke generation for air defence, Russia has emplaced smoke generators as part of the defences for the Kerch Strait bridge. So perhaps their doctrine for smoke to is use it for particularly high value infrastructure.
I doubt that they would use smoke in a wider sense, like in the examples you cited. In those cases, the defenders were acting under the total air dominance of the enemy (Western) Air power. Russia, on the other hand, is operating it's own air power in many of the areas where Ukraine is attacking with drones, especially those that use optical or IR guidance. Any use of smoke by the Russians would surely interfere with their own airborne systems as much as with those of Ukraine.
Isn't it also the case that Ukraine is not making widespread use of smoke generation? Presumably for similar reasons.
This is so interesting
it would be really useful if in video we could see pictures of related topic
Thought sending super thanks, but I realised that damn button is missing 😐
The critical issue with air defence that has low integration and low to no automation is operator skill.
Sending your S300 crews to fight as Infantry is epic stupidity and under value of training and combat readiness.
Shooting down civilian aircraft that look nothing like a drone or missile shows the incompetence of the crew.
Civilian flights are incompatible with military operations.
They do not know the level of integration. Have you watched the video?
Russia's superior Air Defence System - Debris 2000, has a 99,9% succes rateSlava Ukraini✌💙💛
didnt ukraine use russian systems mostly ? and they stopped russia airplanes first 2 years. Or am I wrong? patriot is short range and very few em delivered and many destroyd by iskander.
Ukraine has S300 and some Buk however the MANPADS are significant early support for Ukraine. RF pilots know they will end against Stinger etc.
These are NAFO NED spies. Thanks for exposing them.
Ukrainian planes would also not be able to get into Russian airspace. Drones, missiles do - which is true the other way around too.
Also iskander destroyed patriots is not really a thing.
And the last thing: patriots are not short ranged per se. That's up to the interceptors. There are +150 km ones.
Conjecture posing as fact is all this is. If he wanted us to see the report he should have posted a link.
People like this scare me.
Reason being is they can play both sides.
They can advise companies on how to design new systems to counter existing systems and then design systems to make those systems obsolete.
Repeat. Repeat.
It's not advisable to trust a person as such when there's so much to gain by exploiting your position with little oversite.
So better "both sides" do not know, what the other is doing? Clever.
Good God....these guys don't understand a thing about Russian air defence
Oh please enlighten us great sage.
List the top 3-5 things they said that were so wrong.
Lool. Keep you swallowing propaganda deluding yourself that its the truth