KoTeMoRe wrote:eehnie wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:eehnie wrote:sepheronx wrote:The Russians knew the risks. They are fighting a conflict that is difficult all around, with very incompetent ally and enemies with lots of weapons. Yet, in the entirety of this conflict, they lost few (21 now?) and as much as it is sad, they knew that casualties will happen and always do. Happened for US, France, Canada, etc everywhere. Sad but realities of a war. If it was just planes, doubt any would face issue besides the Su-24 incident. But when helicopters and guys on the ground appear, then it is bound to happen.
Yes, unfortunately, you are right. Most of the human loses are from helicopters in military campaigns like this.
And this is still a war, where the islamic side has very low level of antiaircraft weapons (because their allies fear to give them the guns to avoid loses in their own aircrafts).
But still helicopters are fragile. This is why I talk about a review of the entire concept of helicopter.
There is a way to avoid these casualties in helicopters in the future, and it is to make the helicopters unmanned, avoiding also, of course, the transport of people in contested areas, except maybe for wounded soldiers. Russia (and surely the rest of the countries) will go for it, for their next generation of helicopters. Today makes not sense to begin a new project of helicopter that tries not to be unmanned. The first unmanned helicopters should come around 2030.
Out of this, Russia has been following a very good strategy with the use of aircrafts. They are using the right tactics and the best type of aircrafts to avoid casualties today in these circumstances.
Overexposure in such a campaign is alas unavoidable. They just can't get the right manpower.
I tend to think that Russia is working in Syria like they want. I do not think they want big manpower on the ground. They are going to a minimum risk but effective aid to the Syrian government.
But still the helicopters are emerging (and it also happened to other countries) as a type of warfare where it is more difficult to keep the risks under control all the time. It makes as example the transition to unmanned technologies more urgent on helicopters than for other manned aircrafts.
By manpower I was aiming at Syrian troops. They aren't ready to be a supporting force for many reasons. Risk adverse militaries I know, but the Russian one isn't. The problem is that Russia is trying to overcome the manpower issue with a combination on fast CAS and helicopters. This tragedy here isn't due to CAS, but to something else. So let the inquiry find out why this CSAR Mil found its way on Idlib airspace and how it was shot.
I see. Yes, maybe right. In some way it is understandable if the Syrian soldiers are risk averse. There is not other way to survive to a 5 years war of this intensity, only being very risk averse and being lucky enough. Surely only risk averse soldiers survived until now.