Ukrainian Air Force

[16v_paddy]

Simpo Two said:

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?

The youtube video posted above goes into some good details about just that but a short summary is that the other sides AA defences mean they have to fly low and their MiG29's are very thirsty so they only really have 30 mins of flying before they have to refuel

[Simpo Two]

aeropilot said:

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.

That makes perfect sense. I'm guilty of expecting everything to be on my TV.

16v_paddy said:

Simpo Two said:

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?

The youtube video posted above goes into some good details about just that but a short summary is that the other sides AA defences mean they have to fly low and their MiG29's are very thirsty so they only really have 30 mins of flying before they have to refuel

I just read an article about how the rise of anti-tank weapons might be making the tank obsolete (as the battleship was in WW2). So perhaps the latest generation of ground-to-air missiles is doing the same for ground attack a/c. Interesting times.

[Flooble]

Simpo Two said:

I just read an article about how the rise of anti-tank weapons might be making the tank obsolete (as the battleship was in WW2). So perhaps the latest generation of ground-to-air missiles is doing the same for ground attack a/c. Interesting times.

I remember reading similar about 20 odd years ago. From memory it was pointed out that tanks have always needed to be screened by infantry to a greater or lesser extent, especially since the end of WWII when man-portable anti-tank weapons became fairly capable. Since the advent of proper ground attack aircraft (rotary or fixed wing) tanks have also only been able to operate in a benign environment with air superiority. They now have drones to contend with too.

I think the article I read made the same point about artillery (self propelled or not). To use it you need it to travel hundreds of miles so it's within a few miles of the target (and hence vulnerable to whatever the enemy wants to do with it) and then keep it supplied with fuel, food and ammunition - together with all the other units needed to keep it safe. Whereas an aircraft can fly over, drop a precision guided munition on the target you need to destroy, then fly home again.

I think the thrust of the article (albeit it was a long while ago) was that tanks and artillery are relics of the old way of fighting wars. Infantry will always be needed to occupy territory but anything more than an Armoured Personnel Carrier is just a drain of resources. I think the author was very much for replacing tanks and artillery with attack helicopters (might have been attack aircraft).

[Simpo Two]

Flooble said:

I think the article I read made the same point about artillery (self propelled or not). To use it you need it to travel hundreds of miles so it's within a few miles of the target (and hence vulnerable to whatever the enemy wants to do with it) and then keep it supplied with fuel, food and ammunition - together with all the other units needed to keep it safe. Whereas an aircraft can fly over, drop a precision guided munition on the target you need to destroy, then fly home again.

I'm a great fan of air power, but it can only destroy things. It can't occupy/conquer territory. You have to go in on the ground eventually.

Flooble said:

I think the thrust of the article (albeit it was a long while ago) was that tanks and artillery are relics of the old way of fighting wars. Infantry will always be needed to occupy territory but anything more than an Armoured Personnel Carrier is just a drain of resources.

APCs will be destroyed even more easily than tanks...

Whilst the scale is different, I can't help drawing a parallel between Kiev now and Berlin in 1945. IIRC no defensive position has ever survived. You can't win just by defending.

[Flooble]

Simpo Two said:

APCs will be destroyed even more easily than tanks...

Whilst the scale is different, I can't help drawing a parallel between Kiev now and Berlin in 1945. IIRC no defensive position has ever survived. You can't win just by defending.

Think the reason the author "allowed" APCs was purely because it's a bit rough asking your infantry to walk 200 miles to the frontline :-)
I understand where you are coming from, but if the Ukrainians focus their attacks on supply lines they can always pull off a Stalingrad on the Russians ...

[LotusOmega375D]

Hasn’t the Ukrainian Army or Air Force got any missiles they can lob across the border into Russia?

[Jimbo.]

I’d imagine Russia would see that as a declaration of war, (as opposed defence of your own country) and start lobbing bigger things back.

[Simpo Two]

Jimbo. said:

I’d imagine Russia would see that as a declaration of war, (as opposed defence of your own country) and start lobbing bigger things back.

I think the endgame will be an eventual Russian withdrawal, but keeping some lumps of Ukraine such as the Donbas and probably more. So a net win to Russia (excluding the financial consequences which I don't think Putin is much bothered by)

[Petrus1983]

LotusOmega375D said:

Hasn’t the Ukrainian Army or Air Force got any missiles they can lob across the border into Russia?

I’m sure they do - but playing the “we’re being invaded” card vs “we’re at war” card will be much more valuable to them. We know they’re at war - but now they get all the help they need from sanction to war crimes to weapons mysteriously ending up there.

[Talksteer]

Simpo Two said:

I just read an article about how the rise of anti-tank weapons might be making the tank obsolete (as the battleship was in WW2). So perhaps the latest generation of ground-to-air missiles is doing the same for ground attack a/c. Interesting times.

I'd avoid reading too much into outcomes in this war. Though as similar outcome happened in the Abkhaz–Georgian conflict. Where SAMs substantially grounded both sides.

A few points to make as to why the Russians aren't flying:

• They aren't highly practiced in large scale air operations deconflicting their own strike aircraft and SAMs. They would end up shooting their own aircraft down frequently, even we did in 2003 occasionally.
• The Russian intelligence (C4) chain isn't there to rapidly pass targets from army front lines or other intel platforms to aircraft to allow them to make useful battlefield strikes or CAS. They can attack pre planned targets or things that they can detect from the aircraft directly. Their issues are that the Ukrainians have dispersed or moved anything not hit in the first wave of strikes and they lack good modern targeting pods.

So given the lack of utility of the airforce to a degree it's not a massive surprise that they aren't trying hard to suppress Ukrainian air defence, all probably not helped by assuming that it would all be over in a few days.

NATO forces aren't the Russian airforce and combatting double digit SAMs has been an acknowledged issue for the last 25 years.

• The level of intel and targeting capabilities have vastly increased including the ability to feed data to air assets in real time. When the 2014 airliner shoot down occurred NATO knew precisely what had done it and where. We now essentially have near real time satellite data too and some of the larger SAMs are even detectable by ballistic missile warning systems. The days of sending a SEAD aircraft to get shot at to locate SAMs are over.
• Decoys, the US in particular have fully programmable mini cruise missiles that can even carry jammers and mimic radar signatures. Most aircraft have towed decoys, actively emitting chaff, ejectable jammers.
• Modern anti radiation missiles now tend to have a dual mode speaker with active radar so switching off the radar and even moving a short distance won't help you evade them.
• Today combined operations where we use decoys and real aircraft to bait SAMs into shooting before then pound them with long range guided artillery rockets are perfectly feasible.

All these things are complicated and require extensive training and interconnectivity to pull off, whereas buying a SAM gives you the other half of the deal in a single package.

Edited by Talksteer on Thursday 17th March 08:24

[Talksteer]

With regards to AT missiles we haven't got any dramatically different capabilities today than say in the late 80's. The missiles back then still has ranges in excess of the average horizon, could see in thermal channels and could knock a tank out.

Tactics like bounding-overwatch and keeping a good lookout work against a Javelin as well as a Milan. Fast acting thermal spectrum smoke will stop them as can various hard and soft kill defences.

The reason why tanks are likely obsolete is that their effect of precision direct fire is now replicated by so many platforms which are easier to deploy.

[Siko]

Talksteer said:

NATO forces aren't the Russian airforce and combatting double digit SAMs has been an acknowledged issue for the last 25 years.

Lots of good stuff in your post, to pick up on the double digit SAM issue, in a past life I flew trials against SA15 which is currently being used by Russia in Ukraine. It's an absolute ******* to defeat and that was from the latest western technology at the time. I doubt very much the poor ukrainians have anything decent to counter modern systems such as the SA15 in their ancient Mig 29s. Hence why I assume they are flying very limited operations on an opportunity basis and probably when Western intelligence tells them there is no double-digit threat in a certain area. Brave f****ers, I take my hat off to them.

[havoc]

Simpo Two said:

Whilst the scale is different, I can't help drawing a parallel between Kiev now and Berlin in 1945. IIRC no defensive position has ever survived. You can't win just by defending.

Stalingrad?


Also, depends what you mean by 'win' - if you mean conquer your opponent, then no. If you mean destroy his ability to wage war on you, then very much yes you can.

[havoc]

Talksteer said:

With regards to AT missiles we haven't got any dramatically different capabilities today than say in the late 80's. The missiles back then still has ranges in excess of the average horizon, could see in thermal channels and could knock a tank out.

Tactics like bounding-overwatch and keeping a good lookout work against a Javelin as well as a Milan. Fast acting thermal spectrum smoke will stop them as can various hard and soft kill defences.

The reason why tanks are likely obsolete is that their effect of precision direct fire is now replicated by so many platforms which are easier to deploy.

I'm not so sure tanks ARE obsolete yet. Those other platforms are more vulnerable than tanks and still require (also vulnerable) forward observers to direct them.

What we're seeing here isn't representative of 21st century war-fighting abilities...it's barely past the 1960s in many regards.

I agree with your above comments, plus:
- (AIUI) Cobham armour is proof against even tandem-HEAT, and I'd be surprised if they didn't have thinner Cobham at the top (as opposed to normal armour-plate) which would potentially defeat a single-charge top-down device
- Modern AFVs have IR cameras which give a good chance of detecting AT ambushes and directing counter-fire before launch


What we're seeing here is Russian kit which either lacks all of those modern protections, or the crews aren't using them properly. As much a training issue as a kit issue.

As for the drones, they're operating with impunity because of a lack of ANY anti-air deployment (SAMs or airborne interceptors with AWACS support) across much of the invasion corridors, nor any jamming support. The TB2s couldn't operate the way they are if the Russians had deployed a proper SAM umbrella, or an AWACS-guided CAP, or decent jamming support*.

So I'd be very cautious about drawing any blanket conclusions based on what we're seeing in Ukraine. If it was e.g. the US or UK armed forces going in instead of Russia:-
- They'd have established air superiority early on. Yes, the MANPAD threat would exist, but that's defeated by flying at medium-altitudes and using precision munitions.
- They'd have gone in with AWACS and full ELINT support, so could pinpoint and intercept or jam any non-stealth drones operating in the environment. All the while operating their own drones to ID OpFor units and (potentially) ambushes in advance.
- On the ground their training and threat-detection would have made ambushes far more risky for the defenders, with quick and accurate counter-fire, and a much lower defender launch-to-kill ratio against (especially) tanks, but also light AFVs/APCs.
- They'd have logistics that worked.

Cities would still be a nightmare - look at our experiences in the Middle East and Afghanistan - but open warfare would still be brutal and short against most non-aligned countries.


* I suspect they can't do that because they're reliant on old-tech comms themselves.

[RizzoTheRat]

The US are due to announce the winner of thier Light Tank competition pretty soon so we haven't seen the end of the tank yet. What's been seen in Ukraine is what happens when you have tanks with poorly trained crews, no infantry support and no air cover.

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

The US are due to announce the winner of thier Light Tank competition pretty soon so we haven't seen the end of the tank yet. What's been seen in Ukraine is what happens when you have tanks with poorly trained crews, no infantry support and no air cover.

And terrain/weather conditions that mean they are confined to using the road network, as once off the road network, they often just get stuck.....

[yellowjack]

Petrus1983 said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Hasn’t the Ukrainian Army or Air Force got any missiles they can lob across the border into Russia?

I’m sure they do - but playing the “we’re being invaded” card vs “we’re at war” card will be much more valuable to them. We know they’re at war - but now they get all the help they need from sanction to war crimes to weapons mysteriously ending up there.

At the moment the Ukrainians are "defending themselves".

The moment they start lobbing ordnance over the border into Russia, they are on the front foot, and "acting aggressively", regardless of "who started it".

At the moment the Ukrainians are very vocal about Russian "war crimes". The targeting of non-military sites, hitting protected sites, hospitals, religious buildings, and cultural centres (eg: the theatre attack).

The moment the Ukrainians start lobbing ordnance over the border into Russia, the Russian propaganda machine kicks into top gear, and there's a risk of Ukrainian munitions genuinely causing "collateral damage" to similar Russian non-targets, or the Russians faking damage to civilian, medical, religious or cultural sites.

The other thing to consider is the location of any viable Russian military targets. Is there anything in Russia within range of Ukrainian weapons systems that would be any more useful to attack than attacking Russian formations on Ukrainian soil? If the Ukrainians could drive out Russian forces AND re-arm sufficient to strengthen their border protection, then it might be worth them utilising (on the quiet) NATO supplied intelligence to target Russian offensive weapons systems and equipment inside Russia. But that risks making things worse wrt Russian military operations against Ukraine, and could also turn public opinion against the Ukrainian government and people.

imho there is simply no benefit to Ukraine to expand their scope of operations beyond defense and restoration of the territory taken by Russia. Not while the (seemingly) entire international community is siding with them and condemning the Russian aggression.

[Simpo Two]

yellowjack said:

imho there is simply no benefit to Ukraine to expand their scope of operations beyond defense and restoration of the territory taken by Russia. Not while the (seemingly) entire international community is siding with them and condemning the Russian aggression.

It's interesting to reflect on what effect public opinion has on war, in addition to the munitions used. You could think of public opinion (home country) and public opinion (other countries), each with an attack/defence bonus... certainly this time the entire western world has sided with Ukraine. If it been the other way round, would we instantly side with Russia? Methinks not.

[16v_paddy]

LotusOmega375D said:

Hasn’t the Ukrainian Army or Air Force got any missiles they can lob across the border into Russia?

I'm sure I read something somewhere that said the Ukrainians fired a load of ballistic missiles at a Russian airbase in the 1st few days of the fighting kicking off

[hidetheelephants]

16v_paddy said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Hasn’t the Ukrainian Army or Air Force got any missiles they can lob across the border into Russia?

I'm sure I read something somewhere that said the Ukrainians fired a load of ballistic missiles at a Russian airbase in the 1st few days of the fighting kicking off

There were comments about an explosions or fire at an airfield near Belgorod and right by the border in the first few days of the war, but I haven't seen any confirmation or denial.