Well I’m not an expert, but it’s possible to use cruise missiles and long range bombers to provide cover for the few days it might take to evacuate. Maybe they are busy blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals though.
Cruise missiles and heavy bombers are strategic weapons and can’t really directly cover a retreat. They are good against power plants and bridges, not Serhiy with a Dragunov picking your guys off in the undergrowth.
The issue with cruise missiles and bombers as a response to artillery fire is the response time and air defences.
A cruise missile launched from well within Russia takes long enough to reach the target that mobile artillery has sufficient time to get out. You also need a significant amount of missiles if you want to get any through the air defences.
Bombers struggle to get in range for conventional bombs without being shot down. They also have the issue of response time.
Cruise missiles and bombers are more suited to rather stationary targets, like a command Center, FOB, strongpoint or trench system.
I think people are used to the last couple of decades of Western powers (especially the “super” one) facing underequip militias or 3rd World armies with 4 generations-old equipment.
If you don’t “control the skies” - which means the other side either never had long range AA or all of it got taken out - options like high altitude bombers and cruise missiles, that just worked unimpeded in places like Afghanistan and Yemen (so the only viable strategy for the other side was “don’t get spotted”, which highly limits the whole " bomb the other side’s bridges") don’t actually work all that well.
Militarily Ukraine is nothing at all like Afghanistan: they started already having S300 and meanwhile they’ve received even better AA systems from the West such as Patriots, plus they have to expertise to make and maintain their own modern(ish) military hardware since they were one of the prime designers and makers of it back in Soviet times, so strategies involving air power against them won’t at all work the same (cruise missiles have to be used in large numbers with low rates of success, especially in the most well protected areas like Kyiv, bombers have to stand 100s of kms from the Ukrainian airspace otherwise they’ll be dodging long range AA missiles).
This is actually a modern day version of a the traditional war between two equivalent nations, not asymmetric warfare like every single conflict the US has been involved in since WWII or a the least Korea.
The currently most viable counter to artillery in Ukraine today appears to be either fpv drones, which have relatively short range and limited payloads, or counter-battery radar + artillery, which exposes your artillery by putting it in range of enemy artillery.
Ukraine typically has more accurate artillery than Russia, and seems to win more artillery duels, but of course still has an issue because of Russias huge volume of guns.
Targeting the drone operators is definitely something both sides do- they were considered priority targets last time I heard someone mention it. The issue, as someone else pointed out, is locating and hitting a small, highly mobile person or group that can operate from behind cover and concealment. That turns out to be pretty hard. Just consider that an infantryman’s primary survival strategy is “stay hidden when you can, covered when you can, and move as fast as possible when exposed”, and that drone operators are doing exactly that, while also not needing to stick their head out to be effective.
Well I’m not an expert, but it’s possible to use cruise missiles and long range bombers to provide cover for the few days it might take to evacuate. Maybe they are busy blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals though.
Cruise missiles and heavy bombers are strategic weapons and can’t really directly cover a retreat. They are good against power plants and bridges, not Serhiy with a Dragunov picking your guys off in the undergrowth.
The issue with cruise missiles and bombers as a response to artillery fire is the response time and air defences.
A cruise missile launched from well within Russia takes long enough to reach the target that mobile artillery has sufficient time to get out. You also need a significant amount of missiles if you want to get any through the air defences.
Bombers struggle to get in range for conventional bombs without being shot down. They also have the issue of response time.
Cruise missiles and bombers are more suited to rather stationary targets, like a command Center, FOB, strongpoint or trench system.
I think people are used to the last couple of decades of Western powers (especially the “super” one) facing underequip militias or 3rd World armies with 4 generations-old equipment.
If you don’t “control the skies” - which means the other side either never had long range AA or all of it got taken out - options like high altitude bombers and cruise missiles, that just worked unimpeded in places like Afghanistan and Yemen (so the only viable strategy for the other side was “don’t get spotted”, which highly limits the whole " bomb the other side’s bridges") don’t actually work all that well.
Militarily Ukraine is nothing at all like Afghanistan: they started already having S300 and meanwhile they’ve received even better AA systems from the West such as Patriots, plus they have to expertise to make and maintain their own modern(ish) military hardware since they were one of the prime designers and makers of it back in Soviet times, so strategies involving air power against them won’t at all work the same (cruise missiles have to be used in large numbers with low rates of success, especially in the most well protected areas like Kyiv, bombers have to stand 100s of kms from the Ukrainian airspace otherwise they’ll be dodging long range AA missiles).
This is actually a modern day version of a the traditional war between two equivalent nations, not asymmetric warfare like every single conflict the US has been involved in since WWII or a the least Korea.
Ok then, fighter-bombers or more artillery. If the bridge is in range of Ukrainian drones, then the drone base station is in range of counter fire.
The currently most viable counter to artillery in Ukraine today appears to be either fpv drones, which have relatively short range and limited payloads, or counter-battery radar + artillery, which exposes your artillery by putting it in range of enemy artillery.
Ukraine typically has more accurate artillery than Russia, and seems to win more artillery duels, but of course still has an issue because of Russias huge volume of guns.
Targeting the drone operators is definitely something both sides do- they were considered priority targets last time I heard someone mention it. The issue, as someone else pointed out, is locating and hitting a small, highly mobile person or group that can operate from behind cover and concealment. That turns out to be pretty hard. Just consider that an infantryman’s primary survival strategy is “stay hidden when you can, covered when you can, and move as fast as possible when exposed”, and that drone operators are doing exactly that, while also not needing to stick their head out to be effective.
I think you’re overestimating the staging and emplacement for a drone attack of these types. They don’t need a static “drone base station.”
Like I said, I’m not an expert but I think big drones that can take down a bridge aren’t piloted by two dudes in a bush.
They are probably controlled by one dude in a bush.
Of course you need a base for preparation, but you can drive out to the front and start the drone there.