Imagine the US not being able to establish air superiority over the state of Texas to more or less put it in perspective. (Texas being slightly larger area wise)
If Texas had integrated air defenses and every redneck there had a case of Stingers, it might be pretty tough.
Air Combat and DEAD as a mission isn't my specialty, and I only have passing familiarity with it. AFAIK, the last time the US saw even half-ass decent air defense was Baghdad. In 1991 we had F-117's, a till then unknown capability that we used to great surprise, and in 2003, after 12 years of embargos they had a pasted together system of 25 year old rockets and sensors, which we, again, used stealth to take apart.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the USAF couldn't have taken down the Ukrainian air defenses B2's F35's and F22's would have *expletive deleted*ed them up, but not being as good as the USAF isn't automatically *expletive deleted*it tier. I
am saying that if we had to try and provide CAS with A-10s and F/A-18's, against an enemy well supplied with Stingers, it might be ugly.
The Red Air Force does seem to be really lacking in ISR and Command and Control, even when they can manage to keep a Mainstay in the air. Which goes back to my earlier point about fewer, more technologically advanced weapons (i.e. NATO strategy) seeming to be a winning strategy.
Mostly I'm thinking out loud, because it's likely we'll get to see what's left of the Russians, or the Chinese, or both up close this decade, and I don't want to fall into the trap of "those guys couldn't even beat Ukraine" when what they couldn't beat was the Ukraine, and all of NATO's logistics and reserve weaponry. And all that crap hasn't beaten the Russians yet either.
THe Ukrainians are fighting a hell of an asymmetric war, and well utilizing the resources they have managed to get, and props to them for defending their homes as best they can. I guess we'll see what this summer brings in terms of Russian troop commitment and NATO's fickle citizen's funding desires.