Trudeau says plane crash that killed 63 Canadians will be 'thoroughly investigated'

The technical jargon cannot cover the bullshit spin put out before any real facts are known.

Thanks for taking a break from me today and attacking a liberal instead.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks for taking a break from me today and attacking a liberal instead.

Really? This post is gratuitous and this tendency is why posts come at you that you do not like. If you are not an ass and do not start something then nothing starts -- think about it.

Webgear wrote:

Sean, 

You might like to read the following PDF on Russian Air Defence doctrine.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a166753.pdf

 

Very interesting background material. I have read some things that spoke of this before but not to this detail. I am reading and have not read the whole thing yet.

The document, written by the Americans is very biased as you would expect and it is also very old as the Russians have upgraded this in the lat generation (some 35 years). Still some things are very striking.

The first is that the Russians really learned from the devastating second world war experience, probably more than others when it comes to tactics.

Another point is that the Russians always gave this part of their defence a priority that other countries did not.

I am nto sure how much of this speaks to the Iranian situation but I would suggest that it is likely that the Russians built these technologies expecting the level of calibre and training that they would use. The Iranians do not have the same priority. When it comes to air services they put the bulk of their resources elsewhere, while having purchased and staffed this. The Russians have a different perspective not just on military but also defence: they ahve a principle of avoiding the humiliation of failed defences.

I want to also say, without having read much of this yet, that there is generally a very different approach to Soviet professions -- not just military. The Soviets, were routinely short of equipment -- even in the military. The advanced tremendously but always felt that they were playing catchup. They produced significant technology but always considered that training and knowledge was a priosity over equipment. Just speak to any Soviet erea doctor and they will tell you. 

They did run out of people at time and could be wasteful in trying to achieve objectives but they never expected things to be without a minimum knowledge and skill. 

I knew a person who studied and produced manuscripts about the women air aces of the secodn war Soviet air force. If you hear their stories you can see soem of the kinds of focus on raw skill.

I suspect that the Iranians did not approach the air defences in the same way that they were designed to be approached. This does not mean accidents cannot happen, and all countries report that they do, but there was always an empahsis on ability. This would be particularly true of crews in the defences around the capital.

Another issue that may not have bearing here is that the Soviets always places more emphasis on damage to the enemy even in defence than on protection. They would improve defences to avoid lost territory and to make the enemy pay more than to minimize casualties - if these were ever to be a choice. I think this may be part of the wider military doctrine of being willing to take a hit in order to win an overwhelming victory rather than trying to avoid military or civilian loss of life.

I am wondering if you can direct me to the part that you think is relevant to the equipment the Iranians were using?

I scanned/read up to page 100 but cam not sure what I am looking for that you want me to see. It is interesting but I am trying to place it in context. Thanks for posting it.