Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
There will be quite a lot of difference to the systems in the Polish MiG-29 Fulcrum from the Ukrainian version. Poland have operated within NATO for some time now, so their aircraft will have things such as Western radios and the ability to operate with the Link16 system that lets NATO aircraft talk to each other. IFF identification systems will be different, servicing parts will be sourced from different suppliers, etc, etc. Essentially a Ukrainian pilot could get into a Polish MiG and fly it quite comfortably. However in the heat of battle, finding the right channel to warn your wingman of an enemy fighter behind him, discovering that the arming switches are in a completely different place from what your muscle memory is telling you, means that in a fight, that tactical advantage of comfort and confidence is given away to the opponent. Flying an aircraft is a completely different thing from fighting with it, and that's what the challenge will be. Once the aircrew is fully up to speed, I imagine that the capability of a modern Russian MiG-29 will be comparable to a modernised Polish one on balance, or as near as makes no difference. However I am quite sure that the current Ukrainian MiG-29 would be an older inferior version to both, but the Ukrainians seem to be doing a good job with those.
The Su-27 fleet cannot be built up from elsewhere as no one else in Europe flies them, they are a very capable aircraft, but no more modern than the MiG. Think of the MiG-29/Su-27 combination as being the answer to Americas F15/F16 combination, one expensive heavy fighter, and one cheaper, lighter weight. But in a fight, quite evenly matched. Talk of the Su-57 can be discounted, as Russia do not have more than a handful flying, and I doubt more than two or three ready with all the correct systems to fight. Seeing as its almost 20 years in the making its been tragically slow in it's development, as mentioned above, it still doesn't have the intended engines ready even. While they were blooded over Syria, Russia wouldn't risk them over contested airspace.
Living in Finland, we got very good mileage out of our Hornet fleet, and this year committed to purchase a replacement batch of 64 F35A models. So it's not just the NATO standard aircraft, it looks like being a good choice in isolation, and not just a political purchase. I hope we can get the production lines working a bit faster and get at least a squadrons worth out here ASAP, I think that would make a big difference to Finland's safety. Finland is also committing to purchase next generation anti aircraft systems, so hopefully by the time the Bear starts looking westward again, we will be a little more ready to bloody his nose. There is a genuine fear in the population here that Finland has some place in Putin's expansion plans. Finland shares 1300km of border with Russia from the Northern Fleets base at Murmansk, down to St Petersburg, where the border is just three hour drive from Helsinki. However as Putin loves reading his history books so much, maybe he will think a little harder about trying it on with the Finns.
The Su-27 fleet cannot be built up from elsewhere as no one else in Europe flies them, they are a very capable aircraft, but no more modern than the MiG. Think of the MiG-29/Su-27 combination as being the answer to Americas F15/F16 combination, one expensive heavy fighter, and one cheaper, lighter weight. But in a fight, quite evenly matched. Talk of the Su-57 can be discounted, as Russia do not have more than a handful flying, and I doubt more than two or three ready with all the correct systems to fight. Seeing as its almost 20 years in the making its been tragically slow in it's development, as mentioned above, it still doesn't have the intended engines ready even. While they were blooded over Syria, Russia wouldn't risk them over contested airspace.
Living in Finland, we got very good mileage out of our Hornet fleet, and this year committed to purchase a replacement batch of 64 F35A models. So it's not just the NATO standard aircraft, it looks like being a good choice in isolation, and not just a political purchase. I hope we can get the production lines working a bit faster and get at least a squadrons worth out here ASAP, I think that would make a big difference to Finland's safety. Finland is also committing to purchase next generation anti aircraft systems, so hopefully by the time the Bear starts looking westward again, we will be a little more ready to bloody his nose. There is a genuine fear in the population here that Finland has some place in Putin's expansion plans. Finland shares 1300km of border with Russia from the Northern Fleets base at Murmansk, down to St Petersburg, where the border is just three hour drive from Helsinki. However as Putin loves reading his history books so much, maybe he will think a little harder about trying it on with the Finns.
Jake899 said:
However in the heat of battle, finding the right channel to warn your wingman of an enemy fighter behind him, discovering that the arming switches are in a completely different place from what your muscle memory is telling you, means that in a fight, that tactical advantage of comfort and confidence is given away to the opponent.
I remember reading about a Sea Harrier pilot flying a Harrier in the Falklands, and losing a sidewinder opportunity due to an extra arming switch...Mave said:
I remember reading about a Sea Harrier pilot flying a Harrier in the Falklands, and losing a sidewinder opportunity due to an extra arming switch...
true story, and also the SHAR that was shot down by ground fire over Stanley was a test aircraft wired to fire anti shipping missiles. When the Argentinians discovered this, they assumed the whole SHAR fleet could do the same, reinforcing the decision to keep the Argentinian Navy in port for the whole conflict.Jake899 said:
Talk of the Su-57 can be discounted, as Russia do not have more than a handful flying, and I doubt more than two or three ready with all the correct systems to fight. Seeing as its almost 20 years in the making its been tragically slow in it's development, as mentioned above, it still doesn't have the intended engines ready even. While they were blooded over Syria, Russia wouldn't risk them over contested airspace.
Have you seen the Twitter video that appeared last night/early this morning from Ukraine, of what certainly appears to be a Su-57 attacking a bridge in Ukraine, therefore, it would appear Russia are now prepared to risk them in contested airspace......Which could mean they are getting desperate.
aeropilot said:
Have you seen the Twitter video that appeared last night/early this morning from Ukraine, of what certainly appears to be a Su-57 attacking a bridge in Ukraine, therefore, it would appear Russia are now prepared to risk them in contested airspace......
Which could mean they are getting desperate.
Or that there's no Ukrainian AA capacity there.Which could mean they are getting desperate.
FourWheelDrift said:
Su-57 uses the same smokey old engines the Su-27 & Su-35 uses. So I suspect heat seeking Stinger missiles that have been knocking Su-27s out of the sky would have the same impact on the Su-57.
The ability of an IR guided missile to hit an aircraft has very little to do with the smokiness of the engine.Most IR missiles post 80's have a cooled IR detector which can pickup signatures from the structure of the aircraft.
Something like the Stinger has a rotating disc infront of a single point detector. By analysing the pulse frequency the angle and distance to the centre of the field of view can be determined.
Most sensors use multiple frequency band detectors and digital signal processing to try to filter out flares and other countermeasures. So an aircraft is bright in certain wavelengths and not in others, it is very difficult to get a pyrotechnic to emit at the same spectra.
Surface to air missiles which are coming from below can also look for a hole in the UV spectrum.
More modern sensors use an IR camera and can just "see" the target and thus flares which look quite different can be easily filtered out.
The most basic countermeasure for a fast jet is to just see the missile coming and manoeuvre. A ManPAD has very little energy to begin with. This used to be very difficult to do as they have relatively low launch signatures and aircrew at low levels are already overworked.
However most modern NATO aircraft have a missile launch detection system, in most cases this detects the IR signature of the launch though Typhoon has an all points radar system.
Talksteer said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Su-57 uses the same smokey old engines the Su-27 & Su-35 uses. So I suspect heat seeking Stinger missiles that have been knocking Su-27s out of the sky would have the same impact on the Su-57.
The ability of an IR guided missile to hit an aircraft has very little to do with the smokiness of the engine.Most IR missiles post 80's have a cooled IR detector which can pickup signatures from the structure of the aircraft.
Something like the Stinger has a rotating disc infront of a single point detector. By analysing the pulse frequency the angle and distance to the centre of the field of view can be determined.
Most sensors use multiple frequency band detectors and digital signal processing to try to filter out flares and other countermeasures. So an aircraft is bright in certain wavelengths and not in others, it is very difficult to get a pyrotechnic to emit at the same spectra.
Surface to air missiles which are coming from below can also look for a hole in the UV spectrum.
More modern sensors use an IR camera and can just "see" the target and thus flares which look quite different can be easily filtered out.
The most basic countermeasure for a fast jet is to just see the missile coming and manoeuvre. A ManPAD has very little energy to begin with. This used to be very difficult to do as they have relatively low launch signatures and aircrew at low levels are already overworked.
However most modern NATO aircraft have a missile launch detection system, in most cases this detects the IR signature of the launch though Typhoon has an all points radar system.
Though I can think of a number of ways to counter a DIRCM turret I don't know what is actually used.
Talksteer said:
Talksteer said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Su-57 uses the same smokey old engines the Su-27 & Su-35 uses. So I suspect heat seeking Stinger missiles that have been knocking Su-27s out of the sky would have the same impact on the Su-57.
The ability of an IR guided missile to hit an aircraft has very little to do with the smokiness of the engine.Most IR missiles post 80's have a cooled IR detector which can pickup signatures from the structure of the aircraft.
Something like the Stinger has a rotating disc infront of a single point detector. By analysing the pulse frequency the angle and distance to the centre of the field of view can be determined.
Most sensors use multiple frequency band detectors and digital signal processing to try to filter out flares and other countermeasures. So an aircraft is bright in certain wavelengths and not in others, it is very difficult to get a pyrotechnic to emit at the same spectra.
Surface to air missiles which are coming from below can also look for a hole in the UV spectrum.
More modern sensors use an IR camera and can just "see" the target and thus flares which look quite different can be easily filtered out.
The most basic countermeasure for a fast jet is to just see the missile coming and manoeuvre. A ManPAD has very little energy to begin with. This used to be very difficult to do as they have relatively low launch signatures and aircrew at low levels are already overworked.
However most modern NATO aircraft have a missile launch detection system, in most cases this detects the IR signature of the launch though Typhoon has an all points radar system.
Though I can think of a number of ways to counter a DIRCM turret I don't know what is actually used.
As with most of the very hyped Russian military hardware, I consider the vast majority of it to be nothing more than vapourware, only actually existing in tiny numbers if at all and almost never with the full capability boasted about, as the Ukraine is showing.
Richard-G said:
The Road Crew said:
No doubt about it I'd say, they'd be finished off quickly by the Russian airforce, as would the RAF if we were to wade into a proper air war!
This aged very very badly. Few preemptive long range missile strikes into the Typhoon bases followed up by a load of tu22/95/160 bomber sorties and we'd be on the back foot. We don't have hundreds of fast jets either, I think we'd be shocked just how few we could get in the air quickly. Especially on a weekend!
We've no long range bombers either. Unless we went nuclear with trident it's not a forgone conclusion IMHO. Of course theyd not succeed in a land invasion but there would be a body noise from the air I think.
As for Ukraine, its certainly a very odd campaign from the Russian airforce that's for sure. Whether their bombers aren't that serviceable, or lack the guided precision ammunition, or are fearful of Ukraine defences I dont know but I'm surprised at the lack of the bomber fleet thus far.
Same for the (reported anyways, as far as I know) lack of seeing the newer su jets in constant action. Perhaps Russia are just a paper tiger after all... Who knew?!
Edited by The Road Crew on Tuesday 15th March 22:06
The Road Crew said:
Haha perhaps, you never know and I hope we never find out. I still think if they went all out against us (not with NATO/USA helping us out, just the UK) we'd potentially be in trouble.
Few preemptive long range missile strikes into the Typhoon bases followed up by a load of tu22/95/160 bomber sorties and we'd be on the back foot. We don't have hundreds of fast jets either, I think we'd be shocked just how few we could get in the air quickly. Especially on a weekend!
We've no long range bombers either. Unless you went nuclear with trident it's not a forgone conclusion IMHO.
Well, Ukraine is proving that, I don't think can get too much up in the air either......and they are clearly not wanting to risk the few Tu22M/95/160 they have that are servicable over Ukraine airspace......so I'm not so sure they would be the problem that people think.Few preemptive long range missile strikes into the Typhoon bases followed up by a load of tu22/95/160 bomber sorties and we'd be on the back foot. We don't have hundreds of fast jets either, I think we'd be shocked just how few we could get in the air quickly. Especially on a weekend!
We've no long range bombers either. Unless you went nuclear with trident it's not a forgone conclusion IMHO.
However, our lack of Tornado replacement because the cold war was over......is showing the shortsightedness that most people have long said it was.
Not having a long legged bomb truck is a problem, and a direct Tonka replacement is a serious omission.
I think this is something that needs addressing.
Trying to make a light bomber out of the Typhoon was always silly idea, we should have just bought some Strike Eagle's years ago, to replace Tonka, before the F-15E line closed down.
The Road Crew said:
Richard-G said:
The Road Crew said:
No doubt about it I'd say, they'd be finished off quickly by the Russian airforce, as would the RAF if we were to wade into a proper air war!
This aged very very badly. Few preemptive long range missile strikes into the Typhoon bases followed up by a load of tu22/95/160 bomber sorties and we'd be on the back foot. We don't have hundreds of fast jets either, I think we'd be shocked just how few we could get in the air quickly. Especially on a weekend!
We've no long range bombers either. Unless we went nuclear with trident it's not a forgone conclusion IMHO. Of course theyd not succeed in a land invasion but there would be a body noise from the air I think.
As for Ukraine, its certainly a very odd campaign from the Russian airforce that's for sure. Whether their bombers aren't that serviceable, or lack the guided precision ammunition, or are fearful of Ukraine defences I dont know but I'm surprised at the lack of the bomber fleet thus far.
Same for the (reported anyways, as far as I know) lack of seeing the newer su jets in constant action. Perhaps Russia are just a paper tiger after all... Who knew?!
Edited by The Road Crew on Tuesday 15th March 22:06
The SU34's that seem to be falling from the sky frequently were supposed to be the best they possess.
Looks like a eurofighter with 4-6 meteors would dust anything the ruskies possess based on the su34's performance thus far. They wouldn't see what's firing at them and not know they've got a missile on them until it blows up next to them, by that time the EF has another missile after another clueless Russian jet ad infinitum.
The RAF have gone down a different route, but it's clear to me that an organised RAF would absolutely dust the Russian air force fairly easily.
I mean, they're losing aircraft to their own captured Sam's. That's page 1 chapter 1 stuff.
aeropilot said:
However, our lack of Tornado replacement because the cold war was over......is showing the shortsightedness that most people have long said it was.
Not having a long legged bomb truck is a problem, and a direct Tonka replacement is a serious omission.
I think this is something that needs addressing.
Trying to make a light bomber out of the Typhoon was always silly idea, we should have just bought some Strike Eagle's years ago, to replace Tonka, before the F-15E line closed down.
"Long Legged" - Well from unclassified searches the Tonka GR4 had less than 100nm further Combat radius when loaded with 2x StormShadow, 2x 1500ltr tanks, Jammer, CM dispenser & 2x IR AAM (850nm) than a Typhoon FGR4 with 3x 1000ltr tanks (760nm) but with the Typhoon having a better A/G ability at 2x Storm Shadow & 6x Brimstone/2x PWIV at the same time AND a far greater A/A capability of 4x BVR and 2x IR AAM at the same time and having a far better Avionics suite leading to a much higher survivability factor too.Not having a long legged bomb truck is a problem, and a direct Tonka replacement is a serious omission.
I think this is something that needs addressing.
Trying to make a light bomber out of the Typhoon was always silly idea, we should have just bought some Strike Eagle's years ago, to replace Tonka, before the F-15E line closed down.
I worked GR4's for a years and think they were a great aircraft but when you asked for a Strike Eagle (which also has a 750nm combat radius when loaded with A/A and A/G similarly to the Typhoon) well the Tornado's replacement IS the RAF's "Strike Eagle", only it's called the Typhoon FGR4 and it's better than the Tornado in virtually every regard, even as a single seater and I'd say better in most respects to the legacy F-15E too (but not the F-15SA/QA/EX though).
Yertis said:
You lot would probably enjoy this. The last ten minutes in particular are a good summing up of why a 'no fly zone' is inappropriate.
I always thought Vlodomir Mcthingy showed a remarkable lack of international/military awareness by demanding a no-fly zone. To do that you have to be ready to shoot things down, and NATO is not going to attack Russian assets over non-NATO soil.Simpo Two said:
Yertis said:
You lot would probably enjoy this. The last ten minutes in particular are a good summing up of why a 'no fly zone' is inappropriate.
I always thought Vlodomir Mcthingy showed a remarkable lack of international/military awareness by demanding a no-fly zone. To do that you have to be ready to shoot things down, and NATO is not going to attack Russian assets over non-NATO soil.
Which maybe its part of the deal on offer to Russia in these talks about a peace deal......
All speculation, but its seems, there has to be something on offer to allow Putin to have a 'way out'......
The bigger stumbling block it would seem would be Ukraine's application to join the EU, which is as big a 'no' from Putin's POV as joining NATO.
aeropilot said:
Simpo Two said:
Yertis said:
You lot would probably enjoy this. The last ten minutes in particular are a good summing up of why a 'no fly zone' is inappropriate.
I always thought Vlodomir Mcthingy showed a remarkable lack of international/military awareness by demanding a no-fly zone. To do that you have to be ready to shoot things down, and NATO is not going to attack Russian assets over non-NATO soil.Which maybe its part of the deal on offer to Russia in these talks about a peace deal......
All speculation, but its seems, there has to be something on offer to allow Putin to have a 'way out'......
The bigger stumbling block it would seem would be Ukraine's application to join the EU, which is as big a 'no' from Putin's POV as joining NATO.
Going back to the title of the thread, where are the air forces? Are they both afraid to fly because of the other side's AA defences, or have they all been shot down?
I'm surprised how little coverage there is of any fighting; it's mostly interviews with refugees. News blackout or not much going on?
I'm surprised how little coverage there is of any fighting; it's mostly interviews with refugees. News blackout or not much going on?
Simpo Two said:
I'm surprised how little coverage there is of any fighting; it's mostly interviews with refugees. News blackout or not much going on?
I think this goes back to the Ukrainian request to TV to stop showing its defensive troops on TV which would give info to the Russians, and thus allow them to target them etc etc., so that's why you are no longer seeing the sort of stuff we saw in the first week.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff