There's also the fact that it's yet another type of helo with its own spare parts, separate pilot training, etc. Basically everything it used to do can be done with other tools, better, and frequently cheaper. You'll notice that the US isn't alone in basically ditching the recon-helo concept. So, in a way, it has been replaced, but instead of little a replaced with big A, the capabilities little a has are improved on and added to big C and big D, making a redundant.
Just a small piece of reality, every Russian Tank Bde has an air-defense btln, every Motor-Rifles Bde has two (1 pure SHORAD one with tac-SAMs). In a given battlespace they'd be linked together with a system called Barnaul, that also talks to local PVO (air-defense) command, and ultimately fighter CAPs. Even in Georgia (that war was a cluster-f*ck) armor columns always had Tunguska-Shilka class systems, and even buckets of ZU-23-2s and MANPADS. In '14-'15 the Russian 200th MRB in Eastern Ukraine also used Tunguskas, and they were probably linked up to Russian Tor-M1 and Pantsyr-1S systems also in Ukraine at the time. Even in Syria the Russian field camp in Palmyra, set up so some EOD guys could help clear the city of IEDs, with 0 ISIS airpower threat, the camp was covered by Pantsyr-1S systems, and Flankers regularly flew CAPs over the area. Hopefully this illustrates what ngati was saying above.
A final thought. Areas like AEW, ELINT/SIGINT, are all highly specialized and fairly sensitive. So while some meaningful answers can be given, typically not as many as one would like. Basically the people that talk don't know what they're talking about, and the people who really know aren't allowed to say.
So long story short... The Russians are very prepared to deal with enemy air. How does that compare to the US? And, just a thought, how does that compare to the PRC?
I saw that coming.A final thought. Areas like AEW, ELINT/SIGINT, are all highly specialized and fairly sensitive. So while some meaningful answers can be given, typically not as many as one would like. Basically the people that talk don't know what they're talking about, and the people who really know aren't allowed to say.
Just because it is armed, doesn't make it a CAS platform. If you want to compare apples and oranges, go ahead but you have to understand what the specific aircraft are used for.
Well if you read the two links that I placed in my post then you might become somewhat educated. They explain it. Then whilst looking at those links use the search engine there to search for Plan Jericho. Read them before coming back.
The US has relatively little in the form of organic air defense in mech and armor formations. In fact the US has retired quite a few of those systems. And even during the Cold War the US placed a higher premium on gaining air superiority and air dominance at the theater level then on trying to provide tactical and operational level IADS that can operate independently of the air force.
The PRC has made a considerable effort to develop and field modern air defense assets at every level so in this they are more similar to Russia and the USSR, but you'd have to talk to someone around here who knows a little more about PRC OrBats and force org charts. Also the PRC hasn't gone to war in quite some time. So it's hard to judge how exactly they operate. And undoubtedly the very first significant war they are in will change the way they operate.
Those ZSU 23mm x 2 and ZSU 23mm x 4 might be old weapons system, but they will ruin any helo drivers day. They are downright evil. I to think that the US, UK, Australian, Canadian & NZ armies have not paid enough attention to mobile AAA in the form of auto cannon as much as the Russians or the Chinese have. To my mind it is a big weakness. There is no guarantee that western forces will achieve full air superiority quickly like they did in GW1 and GW2 especially against some one like the Russians or the Chinese.
Is this problem not being addressed at least in part by the likes of SLAMRAAM/MHTK/MML/AMRAAM-ER or CAMM? I note there certainly seems to be an emerging recognition of the inadequacy of our traditional (lackluster) GBAD capabilities here in Australia. Seems to me that the technology is there, it's just not being widely fielded (..yet?)
Mercifully I hope it's still a remote possibility but (without wanting to side track the thread) I can scarcely imagine how such a conflict would be received domestically. It's been a very long time since two major powers have clashed with significant losses being suffered by both sides, and the home front has never had to experience such an event with the kind of information sharing now possible today.
And this is where time becomes a major factor as well. If the proverbial Russian blitz into the Baltics happens, NATO could be facing a fait accompli, before they gain air superiority. Generally time has been a factor in all 3 recent Russian wars, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria. Part of the logic of Russian anti-access strategy is to buy time to either accomplish objectives on the ground or escalate the conflict to a level where it has to be resolved diplomatically. If NATO needs 2 weeks to properly de-laminate and roll back Russian IADS, when the relevant time window is 96 hours, NATO may be forced to either concede or throw mech and armor into the fight without sufficient protection from the air, allowing Russian UAVs and even helos and fast jets, to perform strikes. Especially if we're talking about stand-off munitions.
It goes to time and geography. Was sufficient air power in position, and are sea-based LACMs available? It's not like US nuke subs regularly hang out in the Baltic, and given Russian airspace awareness, the further away the launch is, the more warning time, and more chance at least some of the missiles are intercepted en route. They recently had exercises with MiG-31s not only intercepting typical cruise missile targets, but even Granit missiles allegedly at least one was flying supersonic. But again, it all depends. It's important to note that Russia has relatively little ability to project force overseas, but quite a bit of power in its immediate surroundings. And their interests primarily lie around the ex-USSR space. Syria is an exception. It's also important to note that Russia's next big fight is likely to be in the CARs. An area inherently difficult to reach for the west.
Interesting bubble there Feanor.
Kyrgyziya is also a potential conflict zone, but Uzbekistan seems the most likely right now, especially with the death of Karimov, and their border with Afghanistan. Tadjikistan has a history of recent conflict but also is an CSTO member and has a large Russian military base. With NATO's upcoming departure, it's likely there will be some sort of a conflict there that involves Russia. Kazakhstan is less likely. It has a stable government, pro-Russian government, is relatively wealthy, and is closest to Russia but furthest from the Middle East. It also has a huge Russian minority.